A few more random thoughts....

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.