It's been a good many days since I last blogged and thoughts have accumulated in my head so I might as well record some of them down.
First of all, like almost everyone else in the nation, I have also been emotionally and intellectually interested in the goings-on of our current presidential election. And, like other citizens of my age range (22-ish), I've een drawn into this particular election because of the magnetic glitz and glamour of Senator Barrack Obama. There is no doubt that the man has boundless amounts of charisma, with plenty left to spare for all of us poor saps. However, regardless of how likeable he is as a demagogue, I still like to consider myself a reasonable thinker, a skeptic, if you will; I don't blindly follow anything. Thus, I was naturally a little peeved when I recently told a good friend of mine that I really want to support Barrack Obama (when in the past I've been too cynical of American politics in general to support anyone), and he responded with a snide, "Yeah, he is a charming dude. ALL the young people seem to like him." A little dismissive, dontcha think? As if following the pack in this case is not the right thing to do?
See, Barrack definitely has a lot of charm, and young people do seem to be drawn to his youth and enthusiasm, but the senator also seems to personally embody and exemplify a nobility and integrity that can't be faked, regardless of how good a politician you are. On top of that, he is one smart dude. Unfortunately, the idea of having intelligence seems to matter less than it used to in our country. I mean, how else could you possibly explain the fact that the McCain/Palin ticket is putting up a fight? From what I can tell, they don't even have any REAL issues! Oh well, we lovers of truth and justice, all that we can do is hope for the best.
Now, due to my increased devotion and attention given to the current presidential campaign, I have also paid more attention to the current news stations, specifically CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. These channels are really interesting because I've noticed more and more that the anchors and commentators of these stations appear more and more like celebrities. Think about it. They also have to wear makeup, play to the audience, and gain popularity (thus ratings), or they would be out of a job. Specifically, look at MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. This guy, on top of being really smart, is just plain cool. On the other hand, FOX's Bill O'Reilly is, in my not so humble opinion, just about the closest we can get to a dictator in our country.
Interesting point here: Although I may just be biased, it seems to me that the more liberally minded people also tend to be more sensible and understanding people, too. Has anyone noticed this? Why do Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly come off as such self parodies, while Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews appear so much more understanding, caring, and just plain rational? I think part of it is that it seems like the more conservative minded commentators are quicker to attack (specifically O'Reilly), while Olbermann and Matthews do more of the reacting. Olbermann specifically has a field day just picking at all of O'Reilly's mistakes. Again, this could just be me, but maybe not..... Janine Garofalo, on a recent episode of Bill Maher's new show (I forget the name) specifically stated that Democrats are straight up more decent people than Republicans. Now, although I would not go that far, I would argue that it seems as if the ideals belonging to the current manifestation of the Democratic party appear more noble and... correct, for lack of a better word. Think of it: Taxing the rich more so that the poor can be taxed less. The opposing argument, of course, is that the rich are already taxed much more. So freakin' WHAT? They make SO MUCH MORE MONEY that it shouldn't make a difference. But then, of course, people are selfish. Now we come to the crux of the problem. The Democratic economic principle, by nature, asks people to be less selfish, specifically the people that have less of an excuse to be selfish in the first place (because they have so much). Interesting, ey?
Now, I felt like leaving one paragraph specifically for the devil-incarnate that is Bill O'Reilly. I am so amazed that someone like him is so popular. It is truly a pity because this man represents all that is base and evil of human beings. He has a tremendously inflated ego that makes him think he's better than everyone. He insults and intimidates anyone that does not agree with his views (sound McCarthy-ish to anyone?), and if he can't scare them, he develops this smug attitude to mock. He speaks to just about everyone in a condescending tone (including Barrack Obama), except people that are worth more than him, such as Donald Trump. In those cases, he's much more respectful. What a shady little piece of trash. For very clear examples of the disease in human form that is Billo the Clown, I recommend watching some of Keith Olbermann's attacks on O'Reilly. Although it is definitely biased, Olbermann is a very sensible individual and commentator, and one can't call his attacks nitpicky. O'Reilly always deserves it.
Now, to get off the topic of politics for a bit, I've been doing some reading, so I wanted to talk about those books.
How important are books to a life? Well, they could very well be everything. After all, Emerson did say, 'We are what we read." This could apply to any intake of information, but books are some of the most accessible and fun ways of intaking that information. Which is why I absolutely must recommend "Book by Book: Notes on Reading and Life" by Michael Dirda. As I've written before, Dirda is one of my favorite writers, and in my opinion, one of the absolute great critics of all time. "Book by Book" is the newest book of his that I've read, and now it's my favorite. Nothing more than a "mere" collection of notes on, you guessed it, reading and life. Dirda's wisdom penetrates the important subjects of life, death, love, children, family, and everything else that matters. And he uses books to show how he has developed the views he has. It's an enchanting little book and should be one everybody's shelf. Great to be read and reread multiple times.
Next up is a collection of the short stories of Nikolai Gogol. Eminent among scholars as one of the first writers to develop a literary Russian language (along with his friend Alexander Pushkin), he influenced and paved the way for literary giants like Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy. Now, the stories I read were translated by Priscilla Meyer and Andrew R. MacAndrew, which, in my opinion, were pretty bad translations overall. I was confused early on, wondering exactly what was so special about Gogol. He's supposed to be the Russian Mark Twain, but imbued with a strong and deep sense of melancholy. However, this particular flavor was nowhere to be found, and the stories weren't even funny at all. His short story, "The Nose", should have been hilarious, but I only saw the POTENTIAL for humor when I read it. This is when I realized that, clearly, the translation was the problem.
Which brings me to my spiel on translation. It's interesting, even though two different translators are working with the exact same original source, somethign completely different can come out. Compare Priscilla Meyer's stilted, banal translation of "The Nose" with the award winning translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky:
Meyer:
"He thrust in his fingers and pulled out---a nose!... Ivan Yakovlevich was dumbfounded; he began to rub his eyes and to feel it: a nose, precisely, a nose! And furthermore, it seemed to belong to someone he knew. Horror was expressed on Ivan Yakovelevich's face. But this horror was nothing next to the indignation which seized his wife."
Pevear and Volokhonsky:
"He stuck in his fingers and pulled out--a nose!... Ivan Yakovlevich even dropped his arms; he began rubing his eyes and feeling: a nose, precisely a nose! and, what's more, it seemed like a familiar one. Terror showed on Ivan Yakovlevich's face. But this terror was nothing compared to the indignation that came over his wife."
A minor example, but notice the flow in Pevear and Volokhonsky that is lacking in the Meyer translation. There are much more noticeable differences that can only be sensed when the story is read in whole. Needless to say, I bought Pevear and Volokhonsky's version of Gogol's stories.
After early 19th century Russia, I teleport to the seedy undergrowth that is modern day Hell's Kitchen. Drawn by Alex Maleev and written by the now legendary Brian Michael Bendis, their run on "Daredevil" has now jumped into comics lore, considered by many in the know to be one of the greatest runs on any mainstream comic book... ever. Alas, I was not nearly as enthralled after finishing volumes 4 and 5 (when Bendis and Maleev first take over as a team) as everyone else. The stories just weren't compelling enough. Perhaps Dirda has raised my standards? There's a good chance.
Oh, and somewhere in between all this, I took the time to finish Alan Moore's legendary "Watchmen." When I first saw the trailer for the film adaptation, I was quite impressed, especially at Rorschach's line "They will all look up and shout 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'no.'" Insane line. Truly insane line. And then I read the book, and realized that the movie looks completely sophomoric in comparison. I can already see that the gimmicky darkness and shadow effects of the film's visuals do nothing to capture the sense of dread that is prevalent throughout the book. Alan Moore's masterpiece is just too large to capture in one film. But.... this is all for tonight. I shall go more in depth on Watchmen in some later post. For now, good night and good luck.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
MacArthur Must Die....
I tend to be a rather careful reader; I take the time to mouth out every single word, letting the tone or voice of the author slowly nestle into my brain. This could be attributed to the skill (or lack of) of a weak reader, but I'd like to think I give the author the proper amount of attention and patience. I watch and listen to films and music, respectively, with the same amount of vigilance. Plus, I prefer to read in a relatively quiet environment, lest ideas, humor, or particular beautiful passages escape my notice. However, when faced with the challenge of "MacArthur Must Die," I abandoned all patience and prudence. Not only did I attempt to conquer the book as fast as possible, almost skimming the text at times, I read that baby everywhere and anywhere. This includes while listening to loud music, eating, and watching TV. The simple reason for my justified impatience rests with the fact that this Ian Slater novel just happens to be the worst book I've ever read. It is, in fact, complete and utter garbage, garbage that has reached the tenth degree of rotten.
When judging a book's quality, most likely several categories are used; a book may be strong in one aspect, but weaker in another. This could even apply to some of the classics. Realistically, a classic does not have to be perfect; only a few novels achieve that level of eminence. However, the nightmare that is "MacArthur Must Die" is a total and complete failure, lacking any real redeemable qualities (sure, occasionally a single sentence turns out publishable, but what does that matter?) The plot is convincingly implausible, atrociously banal, and straight up boring. Slater has almost no sense for the telling of a story, spending paragraph after paragraph after paragraph describing the geography of different sections of Australia.
"The most important thing that the reconnaissance pilot told Sloan was that another search line from Esk, in position ten miles to the north, was even now moving south to meet Sloan, the two search lines forming a shrinking corridor, closing in like two railway lines from opposite sides of the crash site, the western end of the corridor blocked by the thick, bush-covered bluffs of Toowoomba's rim. Headquarters in Brisbane had decided that if the pilot had bailed out or walked away from the crash he would most likely try to reach the Warrego Highway to his south, which he could then follow east or west, or he might try to go farther in to the mountain wilderness of the north, away from the highway."
As you can see, this is some awfully boring stuff. In fact, I would say it's the perfect remedy for those nightly bouts with insomnia that one tends to have.
Oh, and here's that ridiculously atrocious plot: Tomokazu Somura is in love with Elizabeth Lawson (this "love" is so boring that one can't even call it sappy; instead, one more rightfully chooses to just not care). Somura is Japanese and Lawson is Australian, which is relatively problematic because the two countries are about to engage in a large war (This book is an imaginary what-if scenario set during WWII). Somura is currently studying in Australia as a foreign exchange student, which explains how the two met. However, he is called back to Japan on account of a sick grandparent, which turns out to be a lie (though it is never explained why). About a week into his homecoming, he is recruited by the Japanese army to "participate" in a special mission, the assassination of Douglas MacArthur, who is planning a major attack on Japan from his base in Australia. Tomokazu (or Tom) is chosen because he understands the Australian geography and customs due to his long time as a student there. Not any less important, he can speak near perfect English. This makes sneaking him in a lot easier.
However, this measure backfires, so the Japanese resort to plan B, which is to have Tomokazu fly a jet bomber into Australian territory to nuke MacArthur's headquarters. Now, this turn of events makes very little sense. Why, of all the people in Japan, is Tom chosen for the bombing? After all, one can see that his advantage with the culture, language, and geography of Australia becomes irrelevant when the plan is a bomb strike, as opposed to an up close and personal stabbing. Any capable pilot could accomplish this task. Why must it be Somura? Of course, Mr. Slater probably has no damn clue as to why either. Oh, and when Tom realizes the necessity of his mission and overall goodness of Tojo, he transforms into a stereotypically evil villain. The metamorphosis is so complete that he is even willing to kill Elizabeth, the woman he supposedly loves, to get at MacArthur. However, the reason for his extremely sudden change of heart is contrived beyond all decency. In other words, a big load of BS.
Now, on top of being a bad storyteller, this Slater fellow also happens to be a disastrous writer, making me realize that my writing is actually publishable. He often writes long, convoluted sentences that lack focus (as in the previous example. Alas, this is even the case when he is not pointing out miscellaneous landmarks), causing the reader to forget exactly what he's talking about in midsentence. Now, I've read Charles Dickens. Although Mr. Dickens also writes in long, meandering sentences, he never loses focus within the sentence itself. Plus, Mr. Slater seems to have fallen for a few specific words because he always uses the same damn words over and over again. Just try and count how many times the words "cumulus," "mottled," and "immaculate" pop up. Truly ridiculous.
As you can see, all of these reasons add together and then multiply to create one truly awful reading experience. I was genuinely astounded when I finished this book. There was absolutely no redeemable quality about it, except for the fact, I guess, that it wasn't too long (a little bit under 300 pages). Needless to say, I would probably not recommend this baby to anyone I like. Even the more masochicstic ones...
(Actually, to be fair, Slater is often credited for his dutiful research on the subjects he writes about, and while reading the book, I actually found the factual information on military procedures and cultural peculiarities of both countries to be rather informative. HOWEVER, it seems that Mr. Slater utterly fails in this aspect also. The only review of this book on Amazon.com is written by a WWII expert, and according to him, it seems that the factual information is far off. The research made was so ineffective, it seems, that the reviewer quit reading the book before finishing it.)
When judging a book's quality, most likely several categories are used; a book may be strong in one aspect, but weaker in another. This could even apply to some of the classics. Realistically, a classic does not have to be perfect; only a few novels achieve that level of eminence. However, the nightmare that is "MacArthur Must Die" is a total and complete failure, lacking any real redeemable qualities (sure, occasionally a single sentence turns out publishable, but what does that matter?) The plot is convincingly implausible, atrociously banal, and straight up boring. Slater has almost no sense for the telling of a story, spending paragraph after paragraph after paragraph describing the geography of different sections of Australia.
"The most important thing that the reconnaissance pilot told Sloan was that another search line from Esk, in position ten miles to the north, was even now moving south to meet Sloan, the two search lines forming a shrinking corridor, closing in like two railway lines from opposite sides of the crash site, the western end of the corridor blocked by the thick, bush-covered bluffs of Toowoomba's rim. Headquarters in Brisbane had decided that if the pilot had bailed out or walked away from the crash he would most likely try to reach the Warrego Highway to his south, which he could then follow east or west, or he might try to go farther in to the mountain wilderness of the north, away from the highway."
As you can see, this is some awfully boring stuff. In fact, I would say it's the perfect remedy for those nightly bouts with insomnia that one tends to have.
Oh, and here's that ridiculously atrocious plot: Tomokazu Somura is in love with Elizabeth Lawson (this "love" is so boring that one can't even call it sappy; instead, one more rightfully chooses to just not care). Somura is Japanese and Lawson is Australian, which is relatively problematic because the two countries are about to engage in a large war (This book is an imaginary what-if scenario set during WWII). Somura is currently studying in Australia as a foreign exchange student, which explains how the two met. However, he is called back to Japan on account of a sick grandparent, which turns out to be a lie (though it is never explained why). About a week into his homecoming, he is recruited by the Japanese army to "participate" in a special mission, the assassination of Douglas MacArthur, who is planning a major attack on Japan from his base in Australia. Tomokazu (or Tom) is chosen because he understands the Australian geography and customs due to his long time as a student there. Not any less important, he can speak near perfect English. This makes sneaking him in a lot easier.
However, this measure backfires, so the Japanese resort to plan B, which is to have Tomokazu fly a jet bomber into Australian territory to nuke MacArthur's headquarters. Now, this turn of events makes very little sense. Why, of all the people in Japan, is Tom chosen for the bombing? After all, one can see that his advantage with the culture, language, and geography of Australia becomes irrelevant when the plan is a bomb strike, as opposed to an up close and personal stabbing. Any capable pilot could accomplish this task. Why must it be Somura? Of course, Mr. Slater probably has no damn clue as to why either. Oh, and when Tom realizes the necessity of his mission and overall goodness of Tojo, he transforms into a stereotypically evil villain. The metamorphosis is so complete that he is even willing to kill Elizabeth, the woman he supposedly loves, to get at MacArthur. However, the reason for his extremely sudden change of heart is contrived beyond all decency. In other words, a big load of BS.
Now, on top of being a bad storyteller, this Slater fellow also happens to be a disastrous writer, making me realize that my writing is actually publishable. He often writes long, convoluted sentences that lack focus (as in the previous example. Alas, this is even the case when he is not pointing out miscellaneous landmarks), causing the reader to forget exactly what he's talking about in midsentence. Now, I've read Charles Dickens. Although Mr. Dickens also writes in long, meandering sentences, he never loses focus within the sentence itself. Plus, Mr. Slater seems to have fallen for a few specific words because he always uses the same damn words over and over again. Just try and count how many times the words "cumulus," "mottled," and "immaculate" pop up. Truly ridiculous.
As you can see, all of these reasons add together and then multiply to create one truly awful reading experience. I was genuinely astounded when I finished this book. There was absolutely no redeemable quality about it, except for the fact, I guess, that it wasn't too long (a little bit under 300 pages). Needless to say, I would probably not recommend this baby to anyone I like. Even the more masochicstic ones...
(Actually, to be fair, Slater is often credited for his dutiful research on the subjects he writes about, and while reading the book, I actually found the factual information on military procedures and cultural peculiarities of both countries to be rather informative. HOWEVER, it seems that Mr. Slater utterly fails in this aspect also. The only review of this book on Amazon.com is written by a WWII expert, and according to him, it seems that the factual information is far off. The research made was so ineffective, it seems, that the reviewer quit reading the book before finishing it.)
Friday, August 22, 2008
So I'm sick...
I want to sleep. This will allow me to wake up more comfortably tomorrow morning, perhaps refreshed by the blow of a chilly breeze or the dash of a fine beam of light. That will then grant me the opportunity to actually attend class with a fresh and active thought process, ready to soak in all of the review work we go over before the final exam on Saturday. Alas, it looks like I will have no such luck tonight. It seems as if I have developed an allergic cough of some kind, one that occurs more frequently when I am horizontal, such as when attempting to sleep. Thus, I bitch on my blog.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
This Side of Paradise..
It's been a while since I posted last. School and other recent activities have taken up my time, and motivation to write has settled at relatively low. However, after about a week and a half of reading (I think? Maybe less), I finally finished Fitzgerald's dazzling debut, "This Side of Paradise." Although far from his best or most complete work, the thought that this book was written by a 23 year old (which is an age I'm personally only a few months away from) utterly boggles my mind and really helps me to understand his realm of genius, and how distant and intimate that realm can be at the same time. One feels Fitzgerald has the ability to capture a sense of universality, but is also almost incapable of understanding the mechanisms at work behind his writing. For example, take this passage:
"Long after midnight the towers and spires of Princeton were visible, with here and there a late-burning light--and suddenly out of the clear darkness the sound of bells. As an endless dream it went on; the spirit of the past brooding over a new generation, the chosen youth from the muddled, unchastened world, still fed romantically on the mistakes and half-forgotten dreams of dead statesmen and poets. Here was a new generation, shouting the old cries, learning the old creeds, through a revery of long days and nights; destined finally to go out into that dirty gray turmoil to follow love and pride; a new generation dedicated more than te last to the fear of poverty and the worship of success; grown up to find all dead, all wars fought, all faiths in man shaken..."
What a remarkable passage! Granted, it might be the single best in the book, but can you honestly believe that a 23 year old wrote this? Where in his short 23 years did he gain the experience to interpret so lucidly and see so translucently the predicament of his generation, the group that later became known as the "Lost Generation." You can't teach this kind of writing; it has to be in (within?) you, which makes it clear why Fitzgerald is a true genius of the first caliber. In the passage, one may also begin to see the larvae of Gatsby; the cohesiveness of theme and narrative, the perfectly controlled pacing, the beautiful yet not overblown (as in other parts of the book) poetic language, and even the singular voice. It's all there.
There are many other beautiful passages in the book, but how is the book itself, as a whole? Honestly, it's not even close to either Gatsby or "Tender is the Night." Not even close. It's much too inconsistent and even a little (dare I say?) fake. Who is honestly convinced by the way Gatsby and Rosalind fall in love? Even Nicholas Sparks writes attraction more believable than that. Also, the pacing of the overall book is much too inconsistent; it doesn't really hook one's interest, unless one's interest is purely literary, in which case you'll almost always find some clever turn of phrase or concrete metaphor when it comes to Fitzgerald. However, I don't think that's enough to carry the book. The plot and pacing are just too inconsistent. Indeed, the inconsistencies, unfortunately, even fall on Amory himself. He often acts contrary to his nature, whatever his nature seems to be. Sure, the character himself doesn't know, but the reader is equally confused because his innate personality seems to change from place to place: sometimes he's immature and snotty, and then at other times, completely knowing and conscious of it. Annoying stuff.
Oh, and there is the other problem of Amory being a generally difficult character to like. He's completely selfish, a little vapid, and totally whiny. Sometimes I felt like telling him to just suck it up, and get over Rosalind. I mean, their love didn't even seem that strong in the first place, but I guess that could be considered Fitzgerald's fault.
Complaints aside, this is still, honestly, a very good book. It might be a juvenile one, but its still very good. Fitzgerald is such a good writer that its difficult for him to write something that's truly bad. From one perspective, "This Side of Paradise" is actually very experimentally interesting, forging a moving narrative out of bits and pieces from the timeline of Amory's life. Not only that, but the writing is almost never written in the same style either. You'll get letters, poetry, traditional narrative, extremely poetic prose, and even a short one-act play. This, in itself, is quite interesting, although, once again, more from a literary perspective than a dramatic one. Now, despite the flaws, this is a book that still needs to be read simply because it is the debut novel of, arguably, the greatest novelist of the twentieth century (though some might argue Joyce, Proust, etc.). I personally like him best among all writers because his romantic notion of life appeals greatly with my (fading?) tendencies. Just remember to not stop with this book. One has to at least read "Gatsby," which, as far as I'm concerned, might be the most perfect novel ever created, and "Tender is the Night," a spellbinding book about one of the greatest love stories in the history of literature.
"Long after midnight the towers and spires of Princeton were visible, with here and there a late-burning light--and suddenly out of the clear darkness the sound of bells. As an endless dream it went on; the spirit of the past brooding over a new generation, the chosen youth from the muddled, unchastened world, still fed romantically on the mistakes and half-forgotten dreams of dead statesmen and poets. Here was a new generation, shouting the old cries, learning the old creeds, through a revery of long days and nights; destined finally to go out into that dirty gray turmoil to follow love and pride; a new generation dedicated more than te last to the fear of poverty and the worship of success; grown up to find all dead, all wars fought, all faiths in man shaken..."
What a remarkable passage! Granted, it might be the single best in the book, but can you honestly believe that a 23 year old wrote this? Where in his short 23 years did he gain the experience to interpret so lucidly and see so translucently the predicament of his generation, the group that later became known as the "Lost Generation." You can't teach this kind of writing; it has to be in (within?) you, which makes it clear why Fitzgerald is a true genius of the first caliber. In the passage, one may also begin to see the larvae of Gatsby; the cohesiveness of theme and narrative, the perfectly controlled pacing, the beautiful yet not overblown (as in other parts of the book) poetic language, and even the singular voice. It's all there.
There are many other beautiful passages in the book, but how is the book itself, as a whole? Honestly, it's not even close to either Gatsby or "Tender is the Night." Not even close. It's much too inconsistent and even a little (dare I say?) fake. Who is honestly convinced by the way Gatsby and Rosalind fall in love? Even Nicholas Sparks writes attraction more believable than that. Also, the pacing of the overall book is much too inconsistent; it doesn't really hook one's interest, unless one's interest is purely literary, in which case you'll almost always find some clever turn of phrase or concrete metaphor when it comes to Fitzgerald. However, I don't think that's enough to carry the book. The plot and pacing are just too inconsistent. Indeed, the inconsistencies, unfortunately, even fall on Amory himself. He often acts contrary to his nature, whatever his nature seems to be. Sure, the character himself doesn't know, but the reader is equally confused because his innate personality seems to change from place to place: sometimes he's immature and snotty, and then at other times, completely knowing and conscious of it. Annoying stuff.
Oh, and there is the other problem of Amory being a generally difficult character to like. He's completely selfish, a little vapid, and totally whiny. Sometimes I felt like telling him to just suck it up, and get over Rosalind. I mean, their love didn't even seem that strong in the first place, but I guess that could be considered Fitzgerald's fault.
Complaints aside, this is still, honestly, a very good book. It might be a juvenile one, but its still very good. Fitzgerald is such a good writer that its difficult for him to write something that's truly bad. From one perspective, "This Side of Paradise" is actually very experimentally interesting, forging a moving narrative out of bits and pieces from the timeline of Amory's life. Not only that, but the writing is almost never written in the same style either. You'll get letters, poetry, traditional narrative, extremely poetic prose, and even a short one-act play. This, in itself, is quite interesting, although, once again, more from a literary perspective than a dramatic one. Now, despite the flaws, this is a book that still needs to be read simply because it is the debut novel of, arguably, the greatest novelist of the twentieth century (though some might argue Joyce, Proust, etc.). I personally like him best among all writers because his romantic notion of life appeals greatly with my (fading?) tendencies. Just remember to not stop with this book. One has to at least read "Gatsby," which, as far as I'm concerned, might be the most perfect novel ever created, and "Tender is the Night," a spellbinding book about one of the greatest love stories in the history of literature.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Books I read in July...
Here are a few short reviews of the books I finished in the month of July. Rating is out of five stars.
Bound to Please: An Extraordinary One-Volume Education (2004) - Michael Dirda - *****
Pulltizer-Prize writer Michael Dirda is one of the greatest critics working in America, literary or otherwise. Every single week (as far as I know) he publishes a new review for the "Book World" section of the "Washington Post." If one skims through a list of the books he chooses to critique, one will notice that he maintains a great variety of subjects. Some of his best essays are collected in this book, and if you are a fan of literature, then you will find that his efforts are truly a joy to read, and are great literature themselves. Indeed, in this collection you may encounter thoughts on the writings of the famous critic Edmund Wilson, musings on Djuna Barnes' "Nightwood", and even a fascinating meditation on the problem of education in our schools. What makes Dirda stand out among most other critics is his ingratiating voice and conversational tone. He displays a tremendous learning, but never shows it off and always makes you feel like you are as smart as he is. In fact, he hates overtly academic writing. Plus, one never finds an unsupported opinion, as Dirda is a master of using the quotation to illustrate a point. Here's how he describes his own book in the intro:
""Bound to Please" intentionally resembles a cocktail party more than a work of criticism: it's meant to be entertaining, sometimes provocative, above all a way to catch up with old friends and make new ones. In these pages you'll be inroduced to lots of writesrs and books, and I hope you'll be intrigued enough by what I say to spend an evening with some of them on your own."
Gotta love this guy!
"1776" (2006) - David McCulloch - ****1/2
Great popular history writers have a unique ability of viewing history as narrative, which is honestly the way it should be viewed, and David McCulloch is one of the best at doing just that. Having one the Pullitzer for his biography on our second president, he shows that he still knows what he's doing with this account detailing the battles that occurred during our year of independence. The military is placed ahead of the political as the Declaration of Independence is mentioned almost only in passing. Though I have never been a fan of military history before, McCulloch has helped to change my view by depicting all of the key historical figures in the battles as people, and not just famous, but distant, figures. All of a sudden it was not just about the strategy used and the battles fought. What mattered was the fact that Washington had never even one a battle before he took command of the ragtag rabble of an American army, who were so unorganized, unprepared, and unmotivated that is was an absolute miracle (no other way to view it) for them to have survived that year, much less win the war. Truly a spellbinding book.
"Great British Stories" - Various - *****
This is an old anthology that doesn't even have a copyright date, so I don't know when it was first published. However, the important thing is that the stories inside are all great. Yep, each and every one. The authors range from Thomas Hardy to Roald Dahl to Saki. Every writer gets a little insightful and short bio to give the stories some added context. Although all of them were good, I would have to say that my two favorites were "Witness for the Prosecution" by Agatha Christie and "The Miracle of Purun Bhagat" by Rudyard Kipling. All good stuff, and the great thing was, they were all new to me.
"True Believer" (2007) - Nicholas Sparks - ***1/2
I read this book not thinking that I would like it. However, after finishing it, I would have to say that it actually wasn't that bad, which surprised me because I generally tend to shy away from the contrived and superficial best-selling romances that, ironically enough, Nicholas Sparks is wealthy off of. However, the story of Jeremy Marsh and his visit to the town of Boone Creek was actually stimulating escapism. He's a scientific debunker of miracles such as ghosts and psychics, so when he hears about the strange ghosts that haunt the cemetery of Boone Creek, he decides that he must give it a visit. However, along the way, he meets Lexie Marshall, the town librarian, and falls in love. The book is loaded with obstacles preventing them from getting together, ranging from other boyfriends to personal doubts of commitment. Will the cute couple end up together? Or does life end up getting in the way? Its a fun and emotional tale, and I would say worth reading.
"Superman: Secret Identity" (2005) - Kurt Busiek (writer) Stuart Immonen (artist) - ****
This is a very interesting Elseworlds tale that deals with a young man by the name of Clark Kent. However, he is not the famous Clark Kent that we all know and love; he actually exists in our world. Thus, he gets picked on and made fun of all the time because that's the kind of thing that happens to you when you share your full name with a celebrity. It doesn't help much that our boy Clark is actually a big fan of the Superman comics. However, something really interesting happens. He discovers that, ironically enough, he actually has the powers of Superman. Fascinating, huh? What would those bullies think now? You will have to read to find out. Overall, the story is very well done. Busiek does a great job of finding a voice for Clark that really carries the audience along. Plus, the art of Mr. Immonen is gorgeous; you will have to read it to see what I mean.
"Serenity: Those Left Behind" (2007) - Joss Whedon (writer) Will Conrad (artist) Laura Martin (artist) - ****1/2
This graphic novel is the prequel to the film "Serenity" and is three glorious issues of pure fun and goodness. The art is amazing, as the characters look exactly like the actors of the show, and the dialogue, of course, is brilliant. When reading the words, you can completely picture your favorite actor speaking those very lines. Although, I will have to warn that a huge part of the appeal of the book only works because you are already in love with those characters. If you read the book as a standalone, there is almost no serious character development to speak of.
"newuniversal: Everything Went White" (2008) - Warren Ellis (writer) Salvador Larroca (artist) - ***1/2
This is another one of those comic series that Warren Ellis will start and then finish in five years, assuming, of course, that he chooses to finish it at all. As is the case with most Warren Ellis books, this one contains some interesting sci-fi elements that keep the reader hooked and fascinated at the same time. The character development is relatively sparse, but the story has enough moments to be entertaining. The artwork is pretty and bright and flashy, but doesn't blow me away. However, it gets the job done. Overall, I recommend it.
"Justice League of America: The Lightning Saga" (2008) - Brad Meltzer (writer) Geoff Johns (writer) Various (artist) - ***1/2
This was a fun sequel to "The Tornado's Path", the first volume of Meltzer's run with the JLA, but it lacks that volume's humanity and pathos. Its actually interesting because it combines issues of the JLA with Geoff Johns' JSA to develop one really freaking complicated and convoluted storyline, full of obscure allusions to books that most people have not read. Overall, the payoff for the amount of work you put in isn't worth it. In fact, its kind of contrived and boring, actually. However, the reason this book gets ***1/2 stars is for the extra bonus issues. "Walls" one the Eisner for best single issue, and I thought it was quite good, though I question if it is actually Eisner material. "Monitor Duty" is fun and foreshadows the comeback of a few hall of fame Leaguers. Issue#0, however, was awesome. Meltzer has always been good at capturing the mythos of the characters he writes about, and he does it effortlessly in this issue as well. Read it to see what I mean.
"Justice Society of America: Thy Kingdom Come, Part 1" (2008) - Geoff Johns (writer) Dale Eaglesham (artist) Fernando Pasarin (artist) - ***
This was alright. It's interesting that the team has to deal with the fact that the Superman from the "Kingdom Come" universe has all of a sudden dropped into their own world, but the plotline is incomplete. Plus, there are extra issues that only deal with recruiting more teammates, as if the team isn't large enough already. Overall, though, I would still buy it if you're a fan of the JSA. Actually, to be fair, the book isn't bad for a mainstream superhero team book, but that's only because most of them suck a lot. Not all of them can be "Astonishing X-Men".
"Green Lantern: The Sinestro Corps War, Volumes 1 and 2" (2008) - Geoff Johns (writer) Dave Gibbons (writer) Peter J. Tomasi (writer) Ethan van Sciver (artist) Ivan Reis (artist) Patrick Gleason (artist) - ****
Wow! This is one insane epic. Sinestro has gone insane and created the most powerful army (possibly) in the history of the DC Universe. The main team comprises of himself, the Cyborg Superman, Amon Sur (the son of Abin Sur, who gave Hal Jordan his ring), Superboy-Prime, and the freakin' Anti-Monitor, who almost destroyed the entire DC multiverse in "Crisis on Infinite Earths." Plus, they captured Kyle Rayner and made him Parallax. Oh, and of course, there's an entire army of Yellow Lanterns ready to kill everyone. What does this mean? This means that Hal Jordan and his army of Green Lanterns need to freakin' fight back! Thus, mayhem and chaos ensue. These two books are filled with crazy moments, and the overall scale of the conflict is really quite exhausting, but in a good way. Oh, and I'm gonna give a thumbs up to the overall artwork because it was quite amazing. So much detail packed into these panels. No wonder they were nominated for an Eisner.
"Legion of Superheroes: The Great Darkness Saga" (1991) - Paul Levitz (writer) Keith Giffen (artists) Curt Swan (artist) - **
Ok, first of all, although the trade was released in '91, the original issues actually came out during the early 80's. Now, the comic itself is mostly boring. Unfortunately, the dialogue is the common stilted type that was fashionable during that era of comics. The plot is relatively boring because most of the issues involve random battles that don't mean much since you never really care for the characters. Granted, I'm not a big Legion fan, but if this is story is the best Levitz's Legion has to offer, than the characters probably weren't too well developed to start with. Even worse, most of the plot deals with the mystery villain. Who is causing all this mayhem? However, the front cover shows that it is obviously Darkseid, which ruins any element of suspense and surprise there. Plus, Keith Giffen's art is even that great. I know he improves throughout the issues and actually gets pretty good later in his years, but right now, I wasn't too impressed. However, this book is saved by a Legion Annual issue that is tacked onto the end of the book. That particular issue is drawn by the legendary Curt Swan, who is one of my favorite comic artists. That man is always quite brilliant.
"Shortcomings" (2007) - Adrian Tomine - ****1/2
This is a wonderful graphic novel, one of the best that I"ve read. It deals with a lot of issues, ranging from love to sexual and gender politics. Tomine's dialogue is very real, human, moving, and quite funny. His art is also amazing; he removes all of the clutter in the "scene" so that only what is essential remains. It's kind of how Chaplin framed his films. By the end of this book, I really cared for the characters, even Ben, who was pissing me off to no end near the beginning. In fact, he was still pissing me off near the end, but you really had to feel for the guy. Oh, just a warning, this book can get quite depressive and may even enrage you, as it did me. Either way though, it was still one of the best graphic novels that I have ever read. I definitely recommend a buy.
"Murder Mysteries" (2002) - Neil Gaiman (writer) P. Craig Russell (artist) - ****
This is an adaptation of Neil Gaiman's famous short story into the comics format, and unfortunately, I would have to say it takes a turn for the worse. More on this later. The story deals with a young man who sits down at a bench, next to a strange old man. The old man claims that he is actually the angel of death, God's vengeance manifested into blood and bone. Then, he goes into his story, which is a murder mystery. However, why does the title hint at more than one murder? You must read to find out. Now, the reason I find the comic format a little weaker for this particular book (don't get me wrong, P. Craig Russell is always absolutely breathtaking) is the fact that when I first read the short story, I really couldn't tell whether the old man was lying or not. However, because you get such a strong visual (thanks to the mind of Mr. Russell), the reader is left no doubt that the old man really is the angel. Either way, this is still an entertaining story with a slightly philosophical bent. Read now!
Well, that's it. Hopefully this is helpful and entertaining.
Bound to Please: An Extraordinary One-Volume Education (2004) - Michael Dirda - *****
Pulltizer-Prize writer Michael Dirda is one of the greatest critics working in America, literary or otherwise. Every single week (as far as I know) he publishes a new review for the "Book World" section of the "Washington Post." If one skims through a list of the books he chooses to critique, one will notice that he maintains a great variety of subjects. Some of his best essays are collected in this book, and if you are a fan of literature, then you will find that his efforts are truly a joy to read, and are great literature themselves. Indeed, in this collection you may encounter thoughts on the writings of the famous critic Edmund Wilson, musings on Djuna Barnes' "Nightwood", and even a fascinating meditation on the problem of education in our schools. What makes Dirda stand out among most other critics is his ingratiating voice and conversational tone. He displays a tremendous learning, but never shows it off and always makes you feel like you are as smart as he is. In fact, he hates overtly academic writing. Plus, one never finds an unsupported opinion, as Dirda is a master of using the quotation to illustrate a point. Here's how he describes his own book in the intro:
""Bound to Please" intentionally resembles a cocktail party more than a work of criticism: it's meant to be entertaining, sometimes provocative, above all a way to catch up with old friends and make new ones. In these pages you'll be inroduced to lots of writesrs and books, and I hope you'll be intrigued enough by what I say to spend an evening with some of them on your own."
Gotta love this guy!
"1776" (2006) - David McCulloch - ****1/2
Great popular history writers have a unique ability of viewing history as narrative, which is honestly the way it should be viewed, and David McCulloch is one of the best at doing just that. Having one the Pullitzer for his biography on our second president, he shows that he still knows what he's doing with this account detailing the battles that occurred during our year of independence. The military is placed ahead of the political as the Declaration of Independence is mentioned almost only in passing. Though I have never been a fan of military history before, McCulloch has helped to change my view by depicting all of the key historical figures in the battles as people, and not just famous, but distant, figures. All of a sudden it was not just about the strategy used and the battles fought. What mattered was the fact that Washington had never even one a battle before he took command of the ragtag rabble of an American army, who were so unorganized, unprepared, and unmotivated that is was an absolute miracle (no other way to view it) for them to have survived that year, much less win the war. Truly a spellbinding book.
"Great British Stories" - Various - *****
This is an old anthology that doesn't even have a copyright date, so I don't know when it was first published. However, the important thing is that the stories inside are all great. Yep, each and every one. The authors range from Thomas Hardy to Roald Dahl to Saki. Every writer gets a little insightful and short bio to give the stories some added context. Although all of them were good, I would have to say that my two favorites were "Witness for the Prosecution" by Agatha Christie and "The Miracle of Purun Bhagat" by Rudyard Kipling. All good stuff, and the great thing was, they were all new to me.
"True Believer" (2007) - Nicholas Sparks - ***1/2
I read this book not thinking that I would like it. However, after finishing it, I would have to say that it actually wasn't that bad, which surprised me because I generally tend to shy away from the contrived and superficial best-selling romances that, ironically enough, Nicholas Sparks is wealthy off of. However, the story of Jeremy Marsh and his visit to the town of Boone Creek was actually stimulating escapism. He's a scientific debunker of miracles such as ghosts and psychics, so when he hears about the strange ghosts that haunt the cemetery of Boone Creek, he decides that he must give it a visit. However, along the way, he meets Lexie Marshall, the town librarian, and falls in love. The book is loaded with obstacles preventing them from getting together, ranging from other boyfriends to personal doubts of commitment. Will the cute couple end up together? Or does life end up getting in the way? Its a fun and emotional tale, and I would say worth reading.
"Superman: Secret Identity" (2005) - Kurt Busiek (writer) Stuart Immonen (artist) - ****
This is a very interesting Elseworlds tale that deals with a young man by the name of Clark Kent. However, he is not the famous Clark Kent that we all know and love; he actually exists in our world. Thus, he gets picked on and made fun of all the time because that's the kind of thing that happens to you when you share your full name with a celebrity. It doesn't help much that our boy Clark is actually a big fan of the Superman comics. However, something really interesting happens. He discovers that, ironically enough, he actually has the powers of Superman. Fascinating, huh? What would those bullies think now? You will have to read to find out. Overall, the story is very well done. Busiek does a great job of finding a voice for Clark that really carries the audience along. Plus, the art of Mr. Immonen is gorgeous; you will have to read it to see what I mean.
"Serenity: Those Left Behind" (2007) - Joss Whedon (writer) Will Conrad (artist) Laura Martin (artist) - ****1/2
This graphic novel is the prequel to the film "Serenity" and is three glorious issues of pure fun and goodness. The art is amazing, as the characters look exactly like the actors of the show, and the dialogue, of course, is brilliant. When reading the words, you can completely picture your favorite actor speaking those very lines. Although, I will have to warn that a huge part of the appeal of the book only works because you are already in love with those characters. If you read the book as a standalone, there is almost no serious character development to speak of.
"newuniversal: Everything Went White" (2008) - Warren Ellis (writer) Salvador Larroca (artist) - ***1/2
This is another one of those comic series that Warren Ellis will start and then finish in five years, assuming, of course, that he chooses to finish it at all. As is the case with most Warren Ellis books, this one contains some interesting sci-fi elements that keep the reader hooked and fascinated at the same time. The character development is relatively sparse, but the story has enough moments to be entertaining. The artwork is pretty and bright and flashy, but doesn't blow me away. However, it gets the job done. Overall, I recommend it.
"Justice League of America: The Lightning Saga" (2008) - Brad Meltzer (writer) Geoff Johns (writer) Various (artist) - ***1/2
This was a fun sequel to "The Tornado's Path", the first volume of Meltzer's run with the JLA, but it lacks that volume's humanity and pathos. Its actually interesting because it combines issues of the JLA with Geoff Johns' JSA to develop one really freaking complicated and convoluted storyline, full of obscure allusions to books that most people have not read. Overall, the payoff for the amount of work you put in isn't worth it. In fact, its kind of contrived and boring, actually. However, the reason this book gets ***1/2 stars is for the extra bonus issues. "Walls" one the Eisner for best single issue, and I thought it was quite good, though I question if it is actually Eisner material. "Monitor Duty" is fun and foreshadows the comeback of a few hall of fame Leaguers. Issue#0, however, was awesome. Meltzer has always been good at capturing the mythos of the characters he writes about, and he does it effortlessly in this issue as well. Read it to see what I mean.
"Justice Society of America: Thy Kingdom Come, Part 1" (2008) - Geoff Johns (writer) Dale Eaglesham (artist) Fernando Pasarin (artist) - ***
This was alright. It's interesting that the team has to deal with the fact that the Superman from the "Kingdom Come" universe has all of a sudden dropped into their own world, but the plotline is incomplete. Plus, there are extra issues that only deal with recruiting more teammates, as if the team isn't large enough already. Overall, though, I would still buy it if you're a fan of the JSA. Actually, to be fair, the book isn't bad for a mainstream superhero team book, but that's only because most of them suck a lot. Not all of them can be "Astonishing X-Men".
"Green Lantern: The Sinestro Corps War, Volumes 1 and 2" (2008) - Geoff Johns (writer) Dave Gibbons (writer) Peter J. Tomasi (writer) Ethan van Sciver (artist) Ivan Reis (artist) Patrick Gleason (artist) - ****
Wow! This is one insane epic. Sinestro has gone insane and created the most powerful army (possibly) in the history of the DC Universe. The main team comprises of himself, the Cyborg Superman, Amon Sur (the son of Abin Sur, who gave Hal Jordan his ring), Superboy-Prime, and the freakin' Anti-Monitor, who almost destroyed the entire DC multiverse in "Crisis on Infinite Earths." Plus, they captured Kyle Rayner and made him Parallax. Oh, and of course, there's an entire army of Yellow Lanterns ready to kill everyone. What does this mean? This means that Hal Jordan and his army of Green Lanterns need to freakin' fight back! Thus, mayhem and chaos ensue. These two books are filled with crazy moments, and the overall scale of the conflict is really quite exhausting, but in a good way. Oh, and I'm gonna give a thumbs up to the overall artwork because it was quite amazing. So much detail packed into these panels. No wonder they were nominated for an Eisner.
"Legion of Superheroes: The Great Darkness Saga" (1991) - Paul Levitz (writer) Keith Giffen (artists) Curt Swan (artist) - **
Ok, first of all, although the trade was released in '91, the original issues actually came out during the early 80's. Now, the comic itself is mostly boring. Unfortunately, the dialogue is the common stilted type that was fashionable during that era of comics. The plot is relatively boring because most of the issues involve random battles that don't mean much since you never really care for the characters. Granted, I'm not a big Legion fan, but if this is story is the best Levitz's Legion has to offer, than the characters probably weren't too well developed to start with. Even worse, most of the plot deals with the mystery villain. Who is causing all this mayhem? However, the front cover shows that it is obviously Darkseid, which ruins any element of suspense and surprise there. Plus, Keith Giffen's art is even that great. I know he improves throughout the issues and actually gets pretty good later in his years, but right now, I wasn't too impressed. However, this book is saved by a Legion Annual issue that is tacked onto the end of the book. That particular issue is drawn by the legendary Curt Swan, who is one of my favorite comic artists. That man is always quite brilliant.
"Shortcomings" (2007) - Adrian Tomine - ****1/2
This is a wonderful graphic novel, one of the best that I"ve read. It deals with a lot of issues, ranging from love to sexual and gender politics. Tomine's dialogue is very real, human, moving, and quite funny. His art is also amazing; he removes all of the clutter in the "scene" so that only what is essential remains. It's kind of how Chaplin framed his films. By the end of this book, I really cared for the characters, even Ben, who was pissing me off to no end near the beginning. In fact, he was still pissing me off near the end, but you really had to feel for the guy. Oh, just a warning, this book can get quite depressive and may even enrage you, as it did me. Either way though, it was still one of the best graphic novels that I have ever read. I definitely recommend a buy.
"Murder Mysteries" (2002) - Neil Gaiman (writer) P. Craig Russell (artist) - ****
This is an adaptation of Neil Gaiman's famous short story into the comics format, and unfortunately, I would have to say it takes a turn for the worse. More on this later. The story deals with a young man who sits down at a bench, next to a strange old man. The old man claims that he is actually the angel of death, God's vengeance manifested into blood and bone. Then, he goes into his story, which is a murder mystery. However, why does the title hint at more than one murder? You must read to find out. Now, the reason I find the comic format a little weaker for this particular book (don't get me wrong, P. Craig Russell is always absolutely breathtaking) is the fact that when I first read the short story, I really couldn't tell whether the old man was lying or not. However, because you get such a strong visual (thanks to the mind of Mr. Russell), the reader is left no doubt that the old man really is the angel. Either way, this is still an entertaining story with a slightly philosophical bent. Read now!
Well, that's it. Hopefully this is helpful and entertaining.
Friday, July 25, 2008
A lot of JLA and JSA today....
After prematurely waking up at around 1:00 pm earlier today, I first took a shower because I failed to do so the previous night. Then, my brother and I decided to grab a little bite to eat at our usual favorite substandard Chinese restaurant. The food was better than usual, putting the meal on par with your typical Big Mac. Thus, I was relatively elated. After coming back home around 3:00 am and downing a coke, I decided to start reading some comics... and I kept on reading until around 1:00 am. I don't believe I've ever read so much in one day.
About two weeks ago, I finally purchased the second volume of Geoff Johns' and Dale Eaglesham's critically acclaimed run on JSA, Thy Kingdom Come. Thus, I felt it was time for me to get reacquainted with the goings-on of the DC universe. The last major comic I read that dealt with continuity was 52 and that was a while ago. To catch up, I decided to read both trades of Meltzer's JLA, The Tornado's Path and The Lightning Saga (which was interspliced with two issues of Johns' JSA) and both of Johns' JSA volumes, The Next Age and the afore-mentioned Thy Kingdom Come. I have to say, unfortunately, that my overall opinion was one of relative disappointment, which saddens me a little. I loved Meltzer's Identity Crisis and Johns' Green Lantern: Rebirth, but for some reason, these mainstream, ongoing titles just aren't doing it for me anymore. They just seem to lack the originality and inventiveness that keeps the titles fresh. Perhaps my obsession with superheroes has weakened, but I don't think that's necessarily it. Maybe my standards of good writing have just raised. For example, I still find All Star Superman breathtakingly beautiful. Why is that? Even though Dale Eaglesham and Ed Benes are both extremely proficient artists, I don't feel that they're anything special. On the other hand, the old art of Frank Miller spoke to my feelings and thoughts in a way that were special and unique, maybe a sign of his genius. Just something to think about.
About two weeks ago, I finally purchased the second volume of Geoff Johns' and Dale Eaglesham's critically acclaimed run on JSA, Thy Kingdom Come. Thus, I felt it was time for me to get reacquainted with the goings-on of the DC universe. The last major comic I read that dealt with continuity was 52 and that was a while ago. To catch up, I decided to read both trades of Meltzer's JLA, The Tornado's Path and The Lightning Saga (which was interspliced with two issues of Johns' JSA) and both of Johns' JSA volumes, The Next Age and the afore-mentioned Thy Kingdom Come. I have to say, unfortunately, that my overall opinion was one of relative disappointment, which saddens me a little. I loved Meltzer's Identity Crisis and Johns' Green Lantern: Rebirth, but for some reason, these mainstream, ongoing titles just aren't doing it for me anymore. They just seem to lack the originality and inventiveness that keeps the titles fresh. Perhaps my obsession with superheroes has weakened, but I don't think that's necessarily it. Maybe my standards of good writing have just raised. For example, I still find All Star Superman breathtakingly beautiful. Why is that? Even though Dale Eaglesham and Ed Benes are both extremely proficient artists, I don't feel that they're anything special. On the other hand, the old art of Frank Miller spoke to my feelings and thoughts in a way that were special and unique, maybe a sign of his genius. Just something to think about.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Particular songs that I've been listening to recently...
Just a small list of really good songs....
Big Star - Blue Moon
This short little ballad comes off of their masterful "Third/Sister Lovers" album and is one of the most beautiful songs in the world. The interplay between the instruments is gorgeous and Alex Chilton's mournful longing is always splendid.
Billy Joel - Vienna
Somehow, Vienna is EXACTLY what I think about when listening to this song, even though the lyrics really have nothing to do with the city of Vienna. Another beautiful ballad.
Feist - Brandy Alexander
This is one sexy ballad, filled with seductive phrasing and disarming purrs. The spare arrangement sets the mood perfectly. Oh, and its lyrically fantastic, showing Ms. Feist's skill as a writer to be quite capable.
The Shins - Girl on the Wing
Although I really like just about every song on "Oh, Inverted World," (though I do tend to skip "Your Algebra") I think I've grown to like this one the most. It's strange, not as immediately appetizing as "New Slang," not as formally perfect as "Saint Simon," and not as rocking as "Girl Inform Me," but there is a magical sense to it, especially in the soaring melody of the chorus. I love it.
T.I. - What You Know
That epic riff just straight up ROCKS!
Guided by Voices - Game of Pricks
Although no song on "Alien Lanes" is really a complete "song" (in the normal sense). They're all fragments. This little bit of delight just happens to be my favorite of those fragments.
Weezer - Undone-The Sweater Song
Great piece of indie rock. The acidic riff really drills, and the lyrics are fucking hilarious.
The Replacements - Here Comes a Regular
Paul Westerberg has written TONS of great songs, but I think this just might be his best ballad.... maybe. Gorgeous melody, great lyrics, wistful vocals, and beautiful, beautiful strings.
The Beach Boys - God Only Knows
This just might be the greatest song of all time. It's arguable.
The Stone Roses - (Song for My) Sugar Spun Sister
I love this song. In fact, I love this entire album. How did they produce this thing and make it sound so seductive, distant, close, epic, intimate, beautiful, and so damn rocking, and all at the same time? There was no way they could do it two times in a row, so their failure was almost inevitable.
Well, there's a short list. Obviously, there will be much more recommendations to come.
Big Star - Blue Moon
This short little ballad comes off of their masterful "Third/Sister Lovers" album and is one of the most beautiful songs in the world. The interplay between the instruments is gorgeous and Alex Chilton's mournful longing is always splendid.
Billy Joel - Vienna
Somehow, Vienna is EXACTLY what I think about when listening to this song, even though the lyrics really have nothing to do with the city of Vienna. Another beautiful ballad.
Feist - Brandy Alexander
This is one sexy ballad, filled with seductive phrasing and disarming purrs. The spare arrangement sets the mood perfectly. Oh, and its lyrically fantastic, showing Ms. Feist's skill as a writer to be quite capable.
The Shins - Girl on the Wing
Although I really like just about every song on "Oh, Inverted World," (though I do tend to skip "Your Algebra") I think I've grown to like this one the most. It's strange, not as immediately appetizing as "New Slang," not as formally perfect as "Saint Simon," and not as rocking as "Girl Inform Me," but there is a magical sense to it, especially in the soaring melody of the chorus. I love it.
T.I. - What You Know
That epic riff just straight up ROCKS!
Guided by Voices - Game of Pricks
Although no song on "Alien Lanes" is really a complete "song" (in the normal sense). They're all fragments. This little bit of delight just happens to be my favorite of those fragments.
Weezer - Undone-The Sweater Song
Great piece of indie rock. The acidic riff really drills, and the lyrics are fucking hilarious.
The Replacements - Here Comes a Regular
Paul Westerberg has written TONS of great songs, but I think this just might be his best ballad.... maybe. Gorgeous melody, great lyrics, wistful vocals, and beautiful, beautiful strings.
The Beach Boys - God Only Knows
This just might be the greatest song of all time. It's arguable.
The Stone Roses - (Song for My) Sugar Spun Sister
I love this song. In fact, I love this entire album. How did they produce this thing and make it sound so seductive, distant, close, epic, intimate, beautiful, and so damn rocking, and all at the same time? There was no way they could do it two times in a row, so their failure was almost inevitable.
Well, there's a short list. Obviously, there will be much more recommendations to come.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
An analysis of fear....
I just finished reading The Monkey's Paw by W.W. Jacobs, supposedly one of the most famous horror stories of all time. Without a doubt, it is the creepiest I've ever experienced. As stated before, I've only recently begun the habit of consistent, habitual reading and have thus only really been exposed to horror stories in the realm of film. The scariest, creepiest film that I've seen is probably Les Diaboliques by Henri-Georges Clouzot, a masterpiece of psychological horror and (I think) an acknowledged precursor to Hitchcock's Psycho. However, the terrified and chilled state I was left in after finishing Jacobs' short story--I was literally afraid to look outside my windows--prompted me to immediately ponder on the interesting qualities of horror fiction; specifically, what makes this particular type of entertainment work?
I've come to the conclusion that what's truly scary in a story is what's suggested, as opposed to what's seen. This is why most horror films don't work, especially modern movies that rely on sudden camera jerks or sound effects to jolt the audience (what the audience feels from this is mere temporal excitement, not true fear, the kind that rests in your bones long after you've finished the story). Both Alien and Jaws are two classic examples of horror filmmaking that work specifically because they suggest a large, vicious-looking alien and a malevolent shark. You almost never actually see them on-screen. This works because what the director suggests, the audience then takes and shapes into his or her own nightmare. After all, we don't all fear the same thing. This is also why I feel horror fiction works better in literature than in film because in film there is an extremely strong temptation to show the thing causing the fear, thus ruining the effect. In literature, its ALL suggestion; you never actually see the thing causing the fear, even when the characters in the story do! Thus, you still interpret the horror being suggested and, if it is written well, it is indeed very, very scary. So... read The Monkey's Paw, which is an absolute masterpiece of scary storytelling, as far as I'm concerned.
I've come to the conclusion that what's truly scary in a story is what's suggested, as opposed to what's seen. This is why most horror films don't work, especially modern movies that rely on sudden camera jerks or sound effects to jolt the audience (what the audience feels from this is mere temporal excitement, not true fear, the kind that rests in your bones long after you've finished the story). Both Alien and Jaws are two classic examples of horror filmmaking that work specifically because they suggest a large, vicious-looking alien and a malevolent shark. You almost never actually see them on-screen. This works because what the director suggests, the audience then takes and shapes into his or her own nightmare. After all, we don't all fear the same thing. This is also why I feel horror fiction works better in literature than in film because in film there is an extremely strong temptation to show the thing causing the fear, thus ruining the effect. In literature, its ALL suggestion; you never actually see the thing causing the fear, even when the characters in the story do! Thus, you still interpret the horror being suggested and, if it is written well, it is indeed very, very scary. So... read The Monkey's Paw, which is an absolute masterpiece of scary storytelling, as far as I'm concerned.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Joseph Wambaugh....
I'm relatively disappointed right now. I just finished The Delta Star by Joseph Wambaugh. It was a wonderful book, filled with pure storytelling, some of the most blissfully entertaining that I've ever read. Why would one be disappointed then, especially after such a thrilling experience? Well, I'm in a special situation. See, my copy of the The Delta Star is signed by Mr. Wambaugh and he gave the book to me for free. You see, he taught Screenwriting for the Theatre Department at UCSD as a guest lecturer, and I took that class. However, at the time, I had NO idea who he was, no clue that he was the legendary master of the police procedural, author of the critically acclaimed masterpiece, The Choirboys. Thus, I had no real appreciation for him and his lectures. He seemed like a nice enough guy, funny too, but apparently I'd rather lay in bed instead of attend the 9 am class. Ah.. the foolishness of youth. I ended up getting a C in that class because I ditched many of the mandatory lectures. At the time, I just didn't care. Now I realize that I wasted an amazing opportunity to learn from a master. See, I'm so disappointed right now because I wanted to e-mail him and tell him just how great his book was, but I can't find the e-mail address! And, I can't find it on google either! I actually had his personal e-mail address because he gave it out to everyone in the class. Thus, I am, as they say, out of luck and low on spirit. Oh well, the only thing I can do now is buy my copy of the The Choirboys and read that one, too. More likely than not, that should cheer me up again.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Lester Bangs...
It's interesting sometimes how inspiration just lurks around most of the time, waiting for the correct moment to strike at you. Most of the time you never see it coming, and then boom, its there.
Here's an example: I woke up earlier around 4 am today because I slept around midnight when I normally go to bed around... 4 am. I tried going back to sleep, but it just wasn't working out so I decided to stay up and listen to a little bit of music. I played a few random songs here and there, you know, music that I had heard before and knew I would still like. I don't really feel that early in the morning is the best time for sampling new stuff, when I'm not really awake enough to give a fair listen. After a few songs, I felt like maybe I should start reading something, maybe the book that I'm currently reading at the time. Instead however, I decided to be a little more adventurous than usual and played some more music, this time an entire album, one of my favorite albums actually, Astral Weeks. This is an album that I truly love to death, though I don't play it much at all--in fact, I've probably listened through the entire album ten times in my life?--because I can't handle that much emotional battering that often. It doesn't go down nearly as easily or as smoothly as A Hard Day's Night, let's say. Its such transportational music that it requires a lot of emotional effort from me to fully enjoy. Anyways, after Slim Slow Slider finished, thus ending my musical (spiritual?) journey, I realized that I still love that album, really love it, the kind of love you can't really articulate.
Then, I remembered reading somewhere--I really wish I could remember where just so I could thank the individual--that there was this really profound and masterful "review" written about Van's album by some dude named Lester Bangs, some famous rock critic apparently. In fact, I remember reading that it was its own kind of masterpiece. Before I looked up that article, I first did a little research on the Lester himself and realized that "famous" doesn't really begin to sum up, to do justice to Mr. Bang's legacy. He was a rock critic that really changed the voice of music criticism. In fact, I've NEVER read a critic that "spoke" like Lester does; he's at once personal and distant, writing a mesmerizing poetic prose that explains as much as it enchants. And sometimes it doesn't explain at all, just enchants. He prefers it that way, explaining, "I would rather write like a dancer shaking my ass to boogaloo inside my head, and perhaps reach only readers who like to use books to shake their asses, than to be or write for the man cloistered in a closet somewhere reading Aeschylus while this stupefying world careens crazily past his waxy windows toward its last raving sooty feedback pirouette." Wow. Who writes like that, much less a critic? Not that there's anything wrong with Aeschylus, of course.
Try and (in)take this next bit from that ridiculous article on Astral Weeks,
"Fact: Van Morrison was twenty-two - or twenty-three - years old when he made this record; there are lifetimes behind it. What Astral Weeks deals in are not facts but truths. Astral Weeks, insofar as it can be pinned down, is a record about people stunned by life, completely overwhelmed, stalled in their skins, their ages and selves, paralyzed by the enormity of what in one moment of vision they can comprehend. It is a precious and terrible gift, born of a terrible truth, because what they see is both infinitely beautiful and terminally horrifying: the unlimited human ability to create or destroy, according to whim. It's no Eastern mystic or psychedelic vision of the emerald beyond, nor is it some Baudelairean perception of the beauty of sleaze and grotesquerie. Maybe what it boiled down to is one moment's knowledge of the miracle of life, with its inevitable concomitant, a vertiginous glimpse of the capacity to be hurt, and the capacity to inflict that hurt."
How beautiful that is, how glorious an ode!
Now, two things: First, do yourself a favor and read this ridiculous article in its entirety (You can actually do yourself a second favor by listening to the album itself. In fact, you should do that before reading the article; it would only make sense). Second, I just wanted to point out that Mr. Bangs is really inspirational to me personally because, as a writer, I'm not so good with vocabulary, and although Bangs has extremely good vocabulary himself, I don't think that's what makes him special. It's his immediacy, his energy, his ridiculous vitality, his passion, his absolute love for what he writes about, and his utter insanity, and all of that comes through when I read his work even though I don't really know what he's talking about half of the time, much less the definitions of a lot of his word choices. This is critical writing released from the shackles of demarcation and tradition, what Michael Dirda called "the critic as hedonist." Obviously, his writing is going to influence my writing. I think it already has a little bit. I don't know. Maybe. Either way, I'm glad to have discovered Lester Bangs, and I will most definitely be buying one of his anthologies very soon.
Here's an example: I woke up earlier around 4 am today because I slept around midnight when I normally go to bed around... 4 am. I tried going back to sleep, but it just wasn't working out so I decided to stay up and listen to a little bit of music. I played a few random songs here and there, you know, music that I had heard before and knew I would still like. I don't really feel that early in the morning is the best time for sampling new stuff, when I'm not really awake enough to give a fair listen. After a few songs, I felt like maybe I should start reading something, maybe the book that I'm currently reading at the time. Instead however, I decided to be a little more adventurous than usual and played some more music, this time an entire album, one of my favorite albums actually, Astral Weeks. This is an album that I truly love to death, though I don't play it much at all--in fact, I've probably listened through the entire album ten times in my life?--because I can't handle that much emotional battering that often. It doesn't go down nearly as easily or as smoothly as A Hard Day's Night, let's say. Its such transportational music that it requires a lot of emotional effort from me to fully enjoy. Anyways, after Slim Slow Slider finished, thus ending my musical (spiritual?) journey, I realized that I still love that album, really love it, the kind of love you can't really articulate.
Try and (in)take this next bit from that ridiculous article on Astral Weeks,
"Fact: Van Morrison was twenty-two - or twenty-three - years old when he made this record; there are lifetimes behind it. What Astral Weeks deals in are not facts but truths. Astral Weeks, insofar as it can be pinned down, is a record about people stunned by life, completely overwhelmed, stalled in their skins, their ages and selves, paralyzed by the enormity of what in one moment of vision they can comprehend. It is a precious and terrible gift, born of a terrible truth, because what they see is both infinitely beautiful and terminally horrifying: the unlimited human ability to create or destroy, according to whim. It's no Eastern mystic or psychedelic vision of the emerald beyond, nor is it some Baudelairean perception of the beauty of sleaze and grotesquerie. Maybe what it boiled down to is one moment's knowledge of the miracle of life, with its inevitable concomitant, a vertiginous glimpse of the capacity to be hurt, and the capacity to inflict that hurt."
How beautiful that is, how glorious an ode!
Now, two things: First, do yourself a favor and read this ridiculous article in its entirety (You can actually do yourself a second favor by listening to the album itself. In fact, you should do that before reading the article; it would only make sense). Second, I just wanted to point out that Mr. Bangs is really inspirational to me personally because, as a writer, I'm not so good with vocabulary, and although Bangs has extremely good vocabulary himself, I don't think that's what makes him special. It's his immediacy, his energy, his ridiculous vitality, his passion, his absolute love for what he writes about, and his utter insanity, and all of that comes through when I read his work even though I don't really know what he's talking about half of the time, much less the definitions of a lot of his word choices. This is critical writing released from the shackles of demarcation and tradition, what Michael Dirda called "the critic as hedonist." Obviously, his writing is going to influence my writing. I think it already has a little bit. I don't know. Maybe. Either way, I'm glad to have discovered Lester Bangs, and I will most definitely be buying one of his anthologies very soon.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Reading.....
I've been doing a lot more reading recently, which is definitely a good thing, especially since I want to become a better writer. The funny thing is I used to almost never read at all. It was much too boring, I thought. In fact, throughout all of elementary, junior high, and high school, I'm pretty sure I only read three books out of the entire catalog of required reading, those three being The Great Gatsby, Of Mice and Men, and To Kill a Mockingbird, and I have to say I liked all three quite a bit.
However, once in a while, I get this burning desire to challenge myself a little. I'm pretty sure you all know the feeling. It's the feeling you get when your life has inevitably become a little too mundane and routine. You just wake up one morning and think to yourself, "Hey, why don't I start reading Ulysses? I heard its not bad." However, this particular morning never occurred for me. Rather, my road to the palace of words was a lot more roundabout and... long.
I want to work in movies. In fact, I have wanted to work in movies ever since I first saw Casablanca (or, rather, after I viewed it for the second time because only then did I fully appreciate its beauty and perfection). However, I did not always want to work in movies. Originally, I didn't know what I wanted to do. Big surprise. One day, though, my mom decided to bring home a brand new DVD player. Very nice. Unfortunately however, we had no working DVDs. Naturally, this meant that we needed some. At the time, I was a little bit infatuated with a rather voluptuous blonde by the name of Marilyn Monroe. I caught a glimpse of a documentary about her on TCM one night, and, after about ten hypnotizing minutes of viewing, I immediately entered the immense legion of Marilyn Monroe fans. Ergo, when I found out that we had a new DVD player, I immediately drove off to the nearest Best Buy to purchase my first two DVDs (I now have a collection of over six hundred), The Seven Year Itch and Some Like it Hot.
I watched both films. The Seven Year Itch was only decent in my mind (I still have yet to rewatch the film, which is something I should do). However, Some Like it Hot absolutely BLEW ME AWAY... on first viewing! Up to that point, my favorite film was by far Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. Clearly, my standards had yet to be raised. Some Like it Hot did it for me, though. For the first time in my life, I had experienced what I would now call a great work of art. Needless to say, I was really hooked. I rewatched the film maybe five more times, picking up more and more nuances with each viewing. I then researched as much trivia as I could about it, and realized that, not surprisingly, it was considered an all-time classic by many critics. Thus, a very profound thought occurred to me at the time: If Some Like it Hot is so good and is an all-time classic, won't other classics be just as good? To satisfy my curiosity, I began collecting more and more American classics by the dozen. I watched all of them and realized that I didn't like every single one as much as I did Some Like it Hot. There were a few, however, that became instant favorites (Casablanca and Singin' in the Rain, for example).
Then, I began to realize something else. The films that I seemed to like most tended to be extremely accessible. However, for some reason, a few of these supposed all time classics were a lot less approachable than something like Some Like it Hot, causing me to actually find them a little... boring. Yet, they were also considered a part of the canon. How could this be? Interestingly, I noticed this "symptom" most acutely in foreign classics, which seemed to almost use a different film language than the one used in American films (which, I later learned in film class, was actually exactly the case, at least among archetypal films). At this point, one of two things can occur. First, I could just dismiss the films as bad and claim that all of the critics in history are wrong for praising them. I'm pretty sure this is a relatively common argument. Or, I could choose to reexamine the films, putting my faith and trust in all of the people that have commended them in the past. A classic is not a classic because some old dude says it is, but rather because it is timeless and can always be experienced over and over again with greater appreciation. Thankfully, I adopted the second mindset (which does require some level of prudence, I admit), and that has made all the difference. I developed new favorites such as Citizen Kane and Kagemusha, both of which were films that I originally disliked. Great works of art almost always speak through the barrier of unfamiliarity if given enough time.
Now, being the curious and open-minded person that I am, I decided that I had watched too many movies, which is not necessarily a bad thing at all. Still though, I realized that there were other things to experience out there. So... I began collecting music. My process of collection was the exact same as with films. I started as a fan of a particular legend (in this case, Frank Sinatra) and went on to explore further musical horizons from there, repeatedly challenging myself along the way (with Japanese noise artists Merzbow and Masonna, no less).
Finally, I arrived at literature. See, at this point in my life, I had become a person that actually liked to challenge himself. I was never a fan of reading, so doing it would require a lot of patience. Thus, it was going to be a challenge, meaning I jumped into it immediately. That was four years ago. Now, I am a relatively fervent reader, but I still have a difficult time with it sometimes because reading requires a lot more focus than listening to music or watching a movie. This is because you can stop watching a film or listening to a song, but the film or song will still continue to roll. When you stop reading, the book stops. Thus, the reader is required to put in more effort than the watcher or the listener. This is a lesson that I am still learning because I tend to get distracted relatively easily, which is a little annoying sometimes. However, I am working on it and making progress. Because of this patience, I have experienced wonderful moments of what I like to call pure reading, when the words begin to slowly permeate the personality, to paraphrase Cyril Connolly.
I like to read a great many things. In fact, I tend to appreciate variety in all aspects of life. This is why my two favorite critics are Roger Ebert and Michael Dirda: Ebert for film and Dirda for literature. Not only are they both Pulitzer Prize winning writers, they are both extremely open-minded and maintain a strict adherence to variety in their selection of films and books. I try to do the same. Dirda, for example, will include and even juxtapose the works of Phillip K. Dick and Lucian in the same book. Ebert places Groundhog Day, Detour, and Ordet in his great films list. Talk about variety.
Oh, in case anyone has not noticed, I am an extremely tangential thinker, and consequently, writer. So, just because the title of the post signifies one subject, that does not mean that that is necessarily what I will be talking about. Anyways... till next time...
However, once in a while, I get this burning desire to challenge myself a little. I'm pretty sure you all know the feeling. It's the feeling you get when your life has inevitably become a little too mundane and routine. You just wake up one morning and think to yourself, "Hey, why don't I start reading Ulysses? I heard its not bad." However, this particular morning never occurred for me. Rather, my road to the palace of words was a lot more roundabout and... long.
I want to work in movies. In fact, I have wanted to work in movies ever since I first saw Casablanca (or, rather, after I viewed it for the second time because only then did I fully appreciate its beauty and perfection). However, I did not always want to work in movies. Originally, I didn't know what I wanted to do. Big surprise. One day, though, my mom decided to bring home a brand new DVD player. Very nice. Unfortunately however, we had no working DVDs. Naturally, this meant that we needed some. At the time, I was a little bit infatuated with a rather voluptuous blonde by the name of Marilyn Monroe. I caught a glimpse of a documentary about her on TCM one night, and, after about ten hypnotizing minutes of viewing, I immediately entered the immense legion of Marilyn Monroe fans. Ergo, when I found out that we had a new DVD player, I immediately drove off to the nearest Best Buy to purchase my first two DVDs (I now have a collection of over six hundred), The Seven Year Itch and Some Like it Hot.
I watched both films. The Seven Year Itch was only decent in my mind (I still have yet to rewatch the film, which is something I should do). However, Some Like it Hot absolutely BLEW ME AWAY... on first viewing! Up to that point, my favorite film was by far Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. Clearly, my standards had yet to be raised. Some Like it Hot did it for me, though. For the first time in my life, I had experienced what I would now call a great work of art. Needless to say, I was really hooked. I rewatched the film maybe five more times, picking up more and more nuances with each viewing. I then researched as much trivia as I could about it, and realized that, not surprisingly, it was considered an all-time classic by many critics. Thus, a very profound thought occurred to me at the time: If Some Like it Hot is so good and is an all-time classic, won't other classics be just as good? To satisfy my curiosity, I began collecting more and more American classics by the dozen. I watched all of them and realized that I didn't like every single one as much as I did Some Like it Hot. There were a few, however, that became instant favorites (Casablanca and Singin' in the Rain, for example).
Then, I began to realize something else. The films that I seemed to like most tended to be extremely accessible. However, for some reason, a few of these supposed all time classics were a lot less approachable than something like Some Like it Hot, causing me to actually find them a little... boring. Yet, they were also considered a part of the canon. How could this be? Interestingly, I noticed this "symptom" most acutely in foreign classics, which seemed to almost use a different film language than the one used in American films (which, I later learned in film class, was actually exactly the case, at least among archetypal films). At this point, one of two things can occur. First, I could just dismiss the films as bad and claim that all of the critics in history are wrong for praising them. I'm pretty sure this is a relatively common argument. Or, I could choose to reexamine the films, putting my faith and trust in all of the people that have commended them in the past. A classic is not a classic because some old dude says it is, but rather because it is timeless and can always be experienced over and over again with greater appreciation. Thankfully, I adopted the second mindset (which does require some level of prudence, I admit), and that has made all the difference. I developed new favorites such as Citizen Kane and Kagemusha, both of which were films that I originally disliked. Great works of art almost always speak through the barrier of unfamiliarity if given enough time.
Now, being the curious and open-minded person that I am, I decided that I had watched too many movies, which is not necessarily a bad thing at all. Still though, I realized that there were other things to experience out there. So... I began collecting music. My process of collection was the exact same as with films. I started as a fan of a particular legend (in this case, Frank Sinatra) and went on to explore further musical horizons from there, repeatedly challenging myself along the way (with Japanese noise artists Merzbow and Masonna, no less).
Finally, I arrived at literature. See, at this point in my life, I had become a person that actually liked to challenge himself. I was never a fan of reading, so doing it would require a lot of patience. Thus, it was going to be a challenge, meaning I jumped into it immediately. That was four years ago. Now, I am a relatively fervent reader, but I still have a difficult time with it sometimes because reading requires a lot more focus than listening to music or watching a movie. This is because you can stop watching a film or listening to a song, but the film or song will still continue to roll. When you stop reading, the book stops. Thus, the reader is required to put in more effort than the watcher or the listener. This is a lesson that I am still learning because I tend to get distracted relatively easily, which is a little annoying sometimes. However, I am working on it and making progress. Because of this patience, I have experienced wonderful moments of what I like to call pure reading, when the words begin to slowly permeate the personality, to paraphrase Cyril Connolly.
I like to read a great many things. In fact, I tend to appreciate variety in all aspects of life. This is why my two favorite critics are Roger Ebert and Michael Dirda: Ebert for film and Dirda for literature. Not only are they both Pulitzer Prize winning writers, they are both extremely open-minded and maintain a strict adherence to variety in their selection of films and books. I try to do the same. Dirda, for example, will include and even juxtapose the works of Phillip K. Dick and Lucian in the same book. Ebert places Groundhog Day, Detour, and Ordet in his great films list. Talk about variety.
Oh, in case anyone has not noticed, I am an extremely tangential thinker, and consequently, writer. So, just because the title of the post signifies one subject, that does not mean that that is necessarily what I will be talking about. Anyways... till next time...
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Inauguration day...
I've finally started a blog. I've been meaning to do this for quite some time now, but I never really acquired the necessary motivation to do so. Sure, the actual starting of the blog requires very little willpower, but I knew that if I was going to start one, I would also have to eventually start writing in it. Therein lies the problem. I tend to be hypercritical about my own writing and almost never end up actually liking it. Thus, when I begin to write something, I inevitably end up erasing it before its finished. I don't know, its a problem of mine. I'm sure many can relate. However, as you can see, I've decided to stop being a pussy and finally start one. Plus, I hear that there is a potential chance for me to actually make some money off this thing, so that's obviously exciting. Thus, I am now an official blogger. Fun.
So, what can you expect to find on my blog? Mostly my thoughts (big surprise), but hopefully these thoughts will at least be interesting because I do tend to think a lot, and not necessarily on the same frequency that most people (At least I've noticed this. Correct me if I'm wrong). I also love life and especially love to observe the interesting nuances of life, so there will definitely be, hopefully, a lot of insightful observations. Oh, and I also like to think of myself as a minor critic, so there will be tons of reviews on tons of different movies, books, food, etc.
So..... yeah, you'll be reading mostly about observations on life and reviews of different things, which will hopefully lead to more observations. And, just so you know, in contrast to many other blogs, there are specific things you will most likely not be reading on my blog. Mostly, you will not be reading about random rants and tirades about random things that piss me off. I also don't plan on using this blog as a place to vent about how horrible my ex-girlfriend was or how I hate my parents or any of that useless bullshit. I want this particular blog to actually be helpful, informative, educational, and, last but definitely not least, entertaining. I feel almost all writing should be entertaining at some level.
My one hope for this blog (besides acquiring actual readers outside of my good friends) is that it eventually helps to improve my writing. I feel that the best way to get better at something is to constantly work at it, so this this will hopefully help. We shall see.
So, what can you expect to find on my blog? Mostly my thoughts (big surprise), but hopefully these thoughts will at least be interesting because I do tend to think a lot, and not necessarily on the same frequency that most people (At least I've noticed this. Correct me if I'm wrong). I also love life and especially love to observe the interesting nuances of life, so there will definitely be, hopefully, a lot of insightful observations. Oh, and I also like to think of myself as a minor critic, so there will be tons of reviews on tons of different movies, books, food, etc.
So..... yeah, you'll be reading mostly about observations on life and reviews of different things, which will hopefully lead to more observations. And, just so you know, in contrast to many other blogs, there are specific things you will most likely not be reading on my blog. Mostly, you will not be reading about random rants and tirades about random things that piss me off. I also don't plan on using this blog as a place to vent about how horrible my ex-girlfriend was or how I hate my parents or any of that useless bullshit. I want this particular blog to actually be helpful, informative, educational, and, last but definitely not least, entertaining. I feel almost all writing should be entertaining at some level.
My one hope for this blog (besides acquiring actual readers outside of my good friends) is that it eventually helps to improve my writing. I feel that the best way to get better at something is to constantly work at it, so this this will hopefully help. We shall see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)