Thursday, March 25, 2010

Dog-eared 10

I’ve decided to copy my wife's “dog-eared” feature. These posts will contain quotations from books, music, movies, and whatever else I feel like sharing.

Lost in the Funhouse

The ticket-woman, witchlike, mortifying him when inadvertently he gave her his name-coin instead of the half-dollar, then unkindly calling Magda’s attention to the birthmark on his temple: “Watch out for him, girlie, he’s a marked man!” She wasn’t even cruel, he understood, only vulgar and insensitive. Somewhere in the world there was a young woman with such splendid understanding that she’d see him entire, like a poem or story, and find his words so valuable after all that when he confessed his apprehensions she would explain why they were in fact the very things that made him precious to her . . . and to Western Civilization! There was no such girl, the simple truth being.

From Lost in the Funhouse, by John Barth, 1968.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Ten Books that Influenced Me

One of the blogs I read is Smart Football. It’s written by a lawyer (I think) who also knows a great deal about the game of football--he's really into the "Xs and Os" and it's all good stuff. His most recent post is titled “Books that have influenced me most,” which is an idea he got from someone else and is something he encouraged others to do. [n.1] I encourage you to participate—I’d love to read about yours.

Here’s my list, compiled off the cuff and without deep thought or extensive reflection (I’m sure I’m missing something):

The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. I read it for the first time as part of a seminar in college, and I read it again two or three years later. It was the first “big book” I ever read. It blew me away and taught me so much about families, men, relationships, doubt, faith, and religion. I was raised in what someone might now call a “secular” household—I’ll call it nonreligious—and the book’s detailed discussion of faith and doubt, particularly Ivan and Alexey’s conversation in the chapter titled “Rebellion,” really interested me. It had a profound effect on me.

Infinite Jest, by David Foster Wallace. OK, so I just finished reading this two months ago, which might cause you to wonder how something I read recently and so relatively late in my life could be much of an influence. Here’s how: Infinite Jest struck me deep in my soul. It made me think and feel things that no other book has come remotely close to making me think or feel. It taught me an insane amount about fiction, how it works, what it can do, why it is important. It also showed me why contemporary and “post-modern” fiction does what it does, sort of. Since I’ve read it I’ve had this incredible explosion in interest in reading all sorts of things—my already incredibly long books-to-read list has grown massively in the last month, due almost entirely to the light Infinite Jest has shown on my reading world. I have a separate post that deals with my obsession with Wallace and why I love Infinite Jest.

Invisible Man, by Ralph Ellison. I read this in my residential college’s “core course,” and it, like all the books in that class, had a great impact on the way I view some of contemporary society’s most notable issues. [n.2] Obviously the issue presented by Invisible Man was racism. As a boy who grew up in a very, very white town bursting at the seams with closet (or not so closet) white supremacists, Invisible Man was a vital part of my early education. That, and it’s very beautifully written.

A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess. I read this in high school, and I absolutely loved it. There was something about fantasies of frightening dystopian futures that I really dug at the time--Orwell's 1984 could also have easily made this list. It taught me about corruption, vengeance, totalitarianism, rehabilitation, and the horrors of violence. Burgess’s prose was also often beautiful, and his creation of the Nasdat slang language was absolutely amazing to me (though, of course, I’ve since realized it was far from a unique achievement).

Philosophical Investigations, by Ludwig Wittgenstein. I was a philosophy major in college (actually a “double” with Politics, but I’ve always felt it was cooler to emphasize the philosophy), so I read a fair amount of philosophy, from the pre-Socratics to contemporary thinkers like Lyotard (whose name I always got a kick out of) [n.3]. I, frankly, don’t remember pretty much any of it. Well, OK, I do remember little bits of Plato from the Symposium and The Republic, but I read plenty of Nietzsche and Kant and can’t tell you the first thing about what those guys talked about. I guess I had other priorities at the time… But, so I did one of my “exit” seminars (two special seminars needed to earn the degree) on the Philosophical Investigations and it was a real eye opener. Maybe it was because of the slow and deep look we took at everything (we read very few pages for every class, but we had to read them very closely), but I actually kind of started to get it. Before that I loved my logic classes, and enjoyed some of my other philosophy classes, but I never really got what the point was until Wittgenstein. In the Investigations, L.W. writes about language, symbols, categories, and such, and it’s all incredibly interesting.

Where I’m Calling From, by Raymond Carver. Raymond Carver showed me the beauty of the real. He showed me how, in the right hands, a very short story could quickly and completely rip your heart out. His stories “Cathedral” and “Beginners” (which is titled, in the book, “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love,” but I prefer to use “Beginners" to distinguish the longer version of the story (which is in Where I’m Calling From) from the much shorter, Gordon Lish-isized version [n.4]) are so masterful and beautiful they break my heart. If you need further proof of my adoration, how’s this: I named my son after the guy.

Letters to Felice, by Franz Kafka. I read this during my senior year of college, not for a course but on my own. It’s sort of a strange pick for this list, but I read it at what was a very sensitive time for me, personally. I had just broken up with my first and, at the time, only girlfriend, and I was also madly in love (or so I thought) with a friend of mine with whom I had a very odd relationship. The book is a collection of letters Kafka wrote to his love interest, a woman named Felice, to whom he twice became engaged before fate made clear it had other plans. The letters are…shall I say it?... Kafkaesque. They are love letters, yes, but they are also dark and frighteningly sincere. So I was reading these and I decided that sort of correspondence was charming and romantic, so I started writing daily letters to the friend I was enamored with. I should add that at that point in my life my prose was wildly influenced by whatever I was reading at the time, so my letters were…Kafkaesque. In hindsight it is perhaps unnecessary to say that these letters did little more than totally freak out my friend. And thus the entire course of my life was changed, or so I thought at the time.

The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, by Sherman Alexie. I read this during my first quarter in college, at the urging of my mother. I’m of mixed heritage and “white” by appearance, but I always identified as an Indian. I’m a member of my tribe, my mom grew up on the reservation, but I was raised in a white, middle-class suburb of Los Angeles. I knew my mom was a tribal member, and that I was too, and I cared about that. I also attended the "Indian heritage training" my schools put on (something in hindsight I am shocked that school district had). But for the most part my childhood involved being a visibly white boy in a white suburb of LA. It wasn’t until I first read Alexie that I experienced art about Indians that wasn’t Dances with Wolves or The Last of the Mohicans. This was incredibly important to the development of the way I viewed my identity, and how I understood my mom’s.

The Selected Works of Oscar Wilde (I can’t find a link to anything close to the book I own, which is very old). The physical book itself is important to me, as it was a lovely gift given to me by my first girlfriend. But the novel The Picture of Dorian Gray and the poem The Ballad of Reading Gaol were both very powerful to me. Wilde taught me about how witty wit can be, and he also taught me how beautiful prose can be. Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov, should also make my list for teaching me how incredibly beautiful English can be. Lolita has the most beautiful first chapter of all time, but then “You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style.”

The Chronicles of Narnia, by C.S. Lewis. If that’s cheating, then just The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. My sixth-grade class read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe aloud. It was probably the first time I got really excited about fiction. By the time I got to the other books, a few years later, I blew through them at a rapid pace, which was something that was previously unheard of for me.


Note 1: Chris’s (Mr. Smart Football) are interesting, but most of the guys he links to have some frightening lists. I’m being honest with mine, even though I might want to replace some of the books with something “cooler,” but I’m surprised how many of those guys have Ayn Rand (the “fifth rate Nietzsche”) on their lists. Now *that* is embarrassing.

Note 2: A Green History of the World, the first book we read from for my core course, and the first book I wrote a college paper about, would have easily made this list if I had read more than two chapters (we weren’t assigned the whole thing).

Note 3: Lyotard taught at U.C. Irvine. I can’t imagine a place less suited to deep thinking in the humanities than Irvine.

Note 4: The relationship between Carver and Lish is something that I care about. It deserves its own post.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Dog-eared 9

I’ve decided to copy my wife's “dog-eared” feature. These posts will contain quotations from books, music, movies, and whatever else I feel like sharing.

A Cult of Cool

[David Foster Wallace has] twice failed the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, the first step toward entering the Catholic Church. (Wallace apparently referred to “the cult of personality surrounding Jesus Christ,” which did not sit well with the priest.)

From A Cult of Cool, by Elizabeth Weil, in the March 18, 1996, Los Angeles Times.

Bad Lieutenant, Forgiveness, and Victims' Rights

Abel Ferrara’s 1992 film Bad Lieutenant has been on my “movies to see list” since it came out. I really like Harvey Keitel, who stars in it, and I was also intrigued by the NC-17 rating (earned mostly for graphic drug use—the nudity, sex scenes, and violent rape of a nun probably didn’t help). A NC-17 rating attached to an artsy independent flick is always intriguing to me. I finally saw it last week.

It was pretty good, that’s all I’ll say about that. I’m not much of a critic in that way. [n.1] But I want to write about one particular part of the movie that got me all riled up.

- - SPOILER ALERT - -
(I can’t write about this without giving away key plot points in the movie, if you want to see it, you probably shouldn’t read this)

The movie is about Harvey Keitel’s character, a very ill behaved cop. He’s investigating the violent rape of a nun committed by two young men (they are referred to as “boys” a few times in the movie but they look like young men to me, maybe they were supposed to be younger but the movie needed more mature actors, I don’t know). The rape is very violent. - GRAPHIC IMAGERY ALERT - They pierce her hymen with a crucifix. And it’s, you know, a nun, which is seriously messed up. So, here’s what gets me. The nun knows who they are and won’t give them up to the cops because she says they are troubled and that she has forgiven them. Keitel says something like, “But they could do it again, we need to stop these guys.” She won’t give them up. Later on, Keitel gets another tip, figures out who the rapists are, and then arrests the guys. But then Keitel takes them to the train station and forces them to leave the city.

So when the nun says she won’t give the rapists up and that she has forgiven them, and it became clear that she’d remain steadfast in her position, I say to Anne (who was half watching the movie, half trying to work): “He should charge her. Bring her in.” We then have this discussion (paraphrased from vague memory):

Anne: “Wait. What?”

Me: “He should charge her. You know, for like interfering with the investigation. What’s that called?”

Anne: “You mean Obstruction of Justice.”

Me: “Yeah. He should totally charge her. Get her to talk.”

Anne: “You’re serious.”

Me: “Yes. Of course.”

Anne: “You think rape victims should be required to cooperate?”

Me: “Yes. Of course.”

Anne: “That’s messed up.”

So, yeah. I think he totally should’ve arrested the nun for refusing to give up her attackers. She made a big deal about having forgiven them, but that isn’t the point. She can forgive them in her heart, she can pray for their souls, she can love them, whatever, but she cannot forgive them for everyone else, for society. She can’t decide that they shouldn’t be arrested and tried before a court. That simply isn’t her decision to make. The strength of my belief on this point would rival that of Atlas’s shoulders. Why is this? I’m not entirely sure. I think it’s probably partly the lawyer in me, insistent that the law should be allowed to work. I think it’s also my somewhat fierce sense of vengeance and retribution—those bastards should not be allowed to get away with it, even if their (primary) victim wants them to. And maybe it’s that my role model for a prosecutor is Jack McCoy, from Law an Order, and Jack McCoy definitely would’ve charged that nun (unless his boss, the politico (before Jack was the politico), was buddies with the Cardinal and made Jack back down, then Jack would’ve just fumed, or something like that). Jack McCoy never hesitated to arrest a sympathetic character to get to the real bad guy—he’d charge a saintly child or a cuddly grandma if they were holding something back. Jack’s a badass.

(Obviously, the cop letting the rapists get away is even more wrong, but it seems too obvious to write about (except I'm sure it was supposed to say something about Keitel's character's nascent transformation.))


Note 1: Every time I think of what I’d say if asked to review something—be it music, a movie, or whatever—I’m reminded of a story Sarah Vowell tells about when she was asked to write a review of a Tom Waits album and the only thing she could think to say, at first, was “I quite like the ballads.” Which of course would’ve left her a thousand or so words short. [n.1a] That’s what would happen to me.

Note 1a: I don’t have a link to cite here, but that’s what I remember her saying.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Some Stuff I've Been Reading Online

"Publishing: The Revolutionary Future," from The New York Review of Books. An interesting discussion about the future of publishing in the digital era.

What makes a word beautiful? What's the deal with "cellar door"? Language Log responds to the NYT's "On Language" column.

The Guardian (UK) posts the "Ten Rules for Writing Fiction" given by a bunch of authors. Part 1, and Part 2.

"Fleeting Youth, Fading Creativity," from the WSJ, discusses whether the young are more creative.

A great essay about David Foster Wallace from The Point.

In a TED talk Ken Robinson discusses how our schools kill creativity (video).

"Five Tips for Writing Non-Fiction" from someone I've never heard of.

A Korean couple obsessed with gaming "Starves Real Child While Raising Virtual One." I'm horrified.

According to the NYT, some guy named Bill Geerhart sent a bunch of letters to famous people. In the letters he pretended to be ten-year-old "Little Billy." Many of the famous people (including Gerald Ford, Dan Quayle, Jack Kevorkian, Larry Flynt, Robert Shapiro, Charles Manson, David Berkowitz, Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, and Harry Blackmun) responded. Now Bill Geerhart is publishing a book of "Little Billy's letters." This is kind of funny, and maybe the book will be interesting, but if I was one of the letter writers, I'd be seriously pissed.


There's no such thing as a synonym, et cetera--an article from Michigan Today.

"Why Do the Archives of So Many Great Writers End Up in Texas?" A totally fascinating article in The New Yorker about the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center at the University of Texas and why they are landing so many big archives treasures.

Manhood for Amateurs, Part 8: Legos

[Soundtrack for this post: Aimee Mann’s The Forgotten Arm]

[Beer for this post: Green Flash Brewing Company’s West Coast IPA]

On to the seventh essay in Michael Chabon’s Manhood for Amateurs (for previous posts on Michael Chabon and MfA, click here).

To the Legoland Station

In this essay Chabon talks about Legos (the toys). He has several insightful points here; most of them involve how Legos have changed and what that means. He notes that the Legos of his youth were offered in only a handful of colors and very limited shapes, while now there are a huge number of very specialized pieces and kits so you can build Tie Fighters, Formula 1 cars, fighter jets, and the like. The main point I took from this was that he was concerned that the proliferation of specialized pieces and the massive manuals necessary to construct a perfect Tie Fighter, etc, would kill creativity—it was no longer about building things from your imagination out of numerous rectangles but rather carefully constructing a pre-imagined item using provided directions. But he found that his fear was unfounded—his kids, in the end, used the special pieces in interesting and unusual ways, making unique and beautiful creative creations.

I enjoyed Legos when I was a kid, but I didn’t own many—I usually just played with my friend Chad’s when I was at his house or when he brought them to my place. Chad also had a huge box of Lincoln Logs that we loved to go to town with. The only toys of that sort I had were a big collection of Tinkertoys pieces. The Tinkertoys were my favorite, but I can’t say why. Tinkertoys are just awesome.

I never really understood the purpose of the special Legos kits where you were intended to use the pieces to build the planned and pre-designed object. The ones that attracted me the most were the Star Wars ones, since I was a big Star Wars nerd, but in the end I couldn’t figure out why you’d want to build a Lego Tie Fighter when you could just get a regular Tie Fighter toy. The whole point of Legos, for me, was that you could build whatever popped into your head. If you want a Tie Fighter, just buy a Tie Fighter (the price was almost certainly comparable)—then your regular Star Wars figures would fit in it, unlike the Legos one that would only fit little Lego dudes.

I’m happy to hear that Chabon’s kids used the special pieces in their own creative projects. Chad’s big mix-and-match set of Legos had a few weird, non-standard pieces, and we always found a place for them in our creations.

The Wikipedia page for Tinkertoys says that the inventors (who were from Evanston and originally displayed their new toys in Chicago!) created the toys to “allow and inspire children to use their imaginations.” And that’s what Tinkertoys did, and that’s what made them so cool.

Not to toot my own horn, but for someone who never really formally studied engineering, I am very capable or understanding mechanics and just generally figuring out how things work. There are many reasons for this, but I don’t doubt that the Legos, Lincoln Logs, and Tinkertoys played a part. I hope Carver enjoys them as much as I did.