A Bunch of Literary Shite

So I just got back from my two tests, and before I write about what I want to write about let me discuss how it went. First was the math test. Easy, piece of cake, it was like shooting big fat trout in a tea cup. I missed ONE question--and I might even get 1/2 credit for that one. I set up the problem correctly, and what I put as the final answer was technically correct, but I also could have (should have) supplied a more precise answer. Also, as I write this I am again reminded that I cannot for the life of me spell answer (which is correct here only because I have access to spell check). Does anyone have some kind of device to remember how to spell it? I used to have trouble spelling Wednesday until I saw that it looks like "Wed" (as in get married to) "nes" (Nintendo Entertainment System) "day" (thus the middle of the week is the day when one marries their Nintendo game system). Anyway, I'll take a minus one because frankly, I thought I'd be struggling in this class. I can't believe how easy this class is. I didn't test into it (I tested higher) but I thought there would some challenge. Oh well, I'll take the easy "A" any day.

Spanish was just okay. I think I got a "B" on it. The hardest part was (once again) the listening part (she talks too damn fast) and the vocabulary section. Unlike previous classes, the vocab part was basically "here are six Spanish words, pick four and define them" in Spanish!!! Yeah, I sucked that part up. Oh well, all I need there is a "D-"

Now that's out of the way...the literary stuff swirling around inside my head. Today we talked about THE GREAT GATSBY in my Modern American Fiction class. My friends Paul and Mike both think I'm off my nut for loving this book so much. Before class started we were discussing what might be on the quiz (we quiz over our readings at the beginning of every class). Paul was unsure of who was who in the book, he seemed a little peeved (amazed?) that I knew everybody (except Tom Buchanan's mistress whose first name escaped me at the time (it's Myrtle)). While they both agreed it's a good book they wanted to know why I LOVE it so much. They laughed at me a little when I said (honestly) I don't know. So I've been trying to come up with a reason why. First, I have to admit, I read this book on my own initially (having never been in a real literature class in High School which forced me to read it) because of its reputation. I also am going to admit that at first, the only reason I said it was my favorite book was because I wanted to look smart. Six years after reading it for the first time, I can actually say that it's my favorite book--there is no ego in my love of GATSBY (anymore). So, what's so great about it?

As far as books go, it's brief (180 pages in the trade paperback edition). I like short, compact little packets of writing. Don't get me wrong, I like 'em long (CRIME AND PUNISHMENT) but nothing comes closer to what I want to someday do as a writer like GATSBY. Short and to the point. What else is so great about? All the characters (and I mean all of them) are tragic figures, none more than Gatsby himself. Why do I like that? Because they each have a halo of sadness that pervades over them--oh sure, the novel is basically a series of parties and beer blasts (to quote S.E. Hinton) but all that jovial behavior is a mask. All the people in GATSBY are fakes, phonies, and liars...but just under the surface are real, lonely, heartbroken people. Just like real life. And then there is Gatsby, whom I most identify with (which is ironic because he's the book's "mystery character"). Gatsby is a mystery by his own design. What I can tell you about him is this: he was born poor, went to war and came back a man on a mission. He became wealthy (the only way you can in America, by cheating someone or something) and set about trying to win back the love of a woman he lost in his youth. He buys a mansion (that looks like a French city hall) directly across the bay from where his beloved Daisy lives (with her husband). At night, he walks to the water and stares at the dim light of her property. He loves her, is obsessed with her. Gatsby spins these tales about himself, in a sense he's a "self-made man" because everything about him (including his name) is a fabrication. He literally created himself, or at least him public image. Why do I identify with this? Well for starters, like most people, I have a sense of who I am (who I really am) as well as who I want to be. I take both of these people and try to live in the middle ground between the two (not always easy to do). Is that lying? I suppose and then again we all do it (to some extent, and some people do this more than others). That Gatsby is fated to die not only for BUT BECAUSE of his love makes him all the more romantic of a figure. Hell, Gatsby (and Eric Clapton) should be the patron saint of unrequited love. As a hopeless romantic myself, I feel a certain kinship with Gatsby.

I also take a perverse amount of pleasure in books that make me feel gloomy/sad/depressed (such as the hopelessness of the characters in my second favorite book THE OUTSIDERS). Again, this is pretty normal/common among people (why else are tragic (sad) movies, plays, TV shows, and songs still so popular?). Real life is like that (tragic and sad) so venturing into a literary world where this occurrence is magnified into art is enjoyable.

I'm not obsessed with GATSBY (we'll get to obsession in a second) but I do examine it closer than any other book in existence. I have two copies (the result of moving to St. Louis last semester without my first copy). I simply couldn't live without the book in my immediate proximity (suffice to say, it's my "desert island" book). Anyway, this second copy I bought because I'm a nutcase is pretty heavily marked up. I have highlighted key passages, words I don't know (complete with their definitions scrawled in the margins), I even have a nice summary of the roman "novel" THE SATYRICON just before chapter seven (in which Fitzgerald references Trimalchio). I don't just read this book, I want to deconstruct it--look at all it's little pieces (even those that aren't really needed to "get" it). Over the break I bought a cheap Dover Thrift edition of some of Fitzgerald's short stories...I read two (one was decent/weird...the other was good) but I gave up on it (for now). I really don't have much desire to read any of his other books. I don't know why this is, I guess I'm afraid what they say about him will be true (that he was pretty much a drunk hack who has about three good books).

ANYWAY, that's why I love THE GREAT GATSBY. Anyone reading this who hasn't read it (or hasn't read it recently) should do themselves a favor and pick it up. I can't stress how valuable (I think) it is.

Now onto obsession. I am once again bitten by the Pynchon bug. Tonight after my tests I went to the fourth floor of the library and sat on a stool in front of his small two shelves. They didn't have a copy of his latest book AGAINST THE DAY (which I really want to read). I want to read THE CRYING OF LOT 49 but we're reading it in a few weeks...and I know I should wait. I had to go pick up a book at the school bookstore today...and I almost picked up the edition our teacher ordered (it's a larger trade paperback (which I love) and has a better cover). I refrained from this impulse (only because I am a poor college student). AGAINST THE DAY is $29.00 and I only have $27.00 on my Borders giftcard (which I need to use to buy Leah a Valentine's Day gift). Anyway, I flipped through a couple of books in his section in the library...most were critical essays on his work. A few were longer (believe it or not) than the actual novels they were about. Over the break I read the first 20 or so pages of GRAVITY'S RAINBOW. I was doing pretty good...and then...BAM!!! I didn't know what the hell was going on. I felt ashamed and put it back--but I still want/need to read it. I've heard that's how it is with Pynchon. You don't "get" everything. According to most of the critical essays I browsed, it seems that Mr. Pynchon doesn't really concern himself with conventions of literature (like plot and sequence). If the Pynchon books were a woman she'd be that really strange girl (with big tits) you're too intimidated to talk to. And forget about fucking her (sorry I'm so crude). I am obsessed with Pynchon. I read SLOW LEARNER over the break and now I'm hooked. I have VINELAND (which I may start this weekend (i.e. tomorrow)). I keep forgetting I have it...it's a nice hardback, too. Ugh....I'm so sick.

On my way back home from the library I thought about the Wednesday Club writing contest. And how I don't really feel like I have nothing to submit. I have "The Dodo Egg" but it needs work. I have resolved to work on cleaning it up...and I sort of want to email it to Terri and find out what she thinks (and get her help). But I'm scared. I need to get some more people to read it too, but my friends Mike and Paul didn't really care much for it last semester. Anyway, the reason I'm relating all of this to you is because when I got back to my dorm room tonight I had an email rejection from McSweeny's website for that very story!! Baby's first rejection slip. I can't believe how excited I am to be turned down. I feel like Melville. Or Dickens. I feel like I have joined a very exclusive clube (the reality is...I HAVEN'T joined the exculsive club). Anyway, my pagan mind is taking this email as a sign. I must revise, re-work, and re-tool this story. I'm going to work on it this weekend (i.e. tomorrow). If you see me, please remind/encourage me to do this.


My favorite GATSBY quote: "Reserving judgments is a matter of infinite hope."

8

For whatever reason, whenever I try and exaggerate a number...I nearly always come up with eight. Example, yesterday as Leah pointed out, in my blog about beating Resident Evil 4 I claimed that she beat it "eight years ago." Now, this game came out in 2003/2004...so clearly she didn't beat it eight years ago. Why do I do this? I've often claimed (when people like Leah point it out to me) that I think "eight is a pretty big number." But it's not, not by a long shot. I know lots of numbers bigger. I think it must have something to do with the multiplication tables. I'm pretty fuzzy on those, but I know that the eight's where a set I never really learned (my knowledge of the eights are comprised of my knowledge of the other sets...containing eight--does that make sense?).

Anyway, in honor of my fist college in math test (in like eight years) here is the factorial of eight:

8!=8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1=40320

Wow.

Mabye the number 8 has some other significance for me...maybe that's the day I'm going to die or something (or maybe that's how many kids I'm going to have? How'd ya like that Leah?).

I get the job done (eventually)

Not that this is huge news...but this morning I finished Resident Evil 4 (a whole 8 years after Leah). I like the feeling I get from finishing a game (especailly one that's as scary as that one). I wish I finished more games...but usually I get pretty far, then either give up or lose interest. I think having Leah is a game buddy is good because this doesn't seem to happen to her...and then she nags me into finishing the game. I'm hard at work on the classic Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time (for the N64). I started the fire dungeon which was the last one I finished as a kid, here's hoping I beat that sucker!!!

Now I have to go read and study...I have two tests tomorrow (in my two favorite subjects: math and spanish).

Rumble Fish

So this weekend I read RUMBLE FISH by S.E. Hinton. Hinton is the author of my second favorite book of all time THE OUTSIDERS. It was a short read (it's a book for teens) but was actually pretty good. This kid, Rusty-James is a typical Hinton thug--he lives a depressing, colorless life of poverty. He has no future, his past is a painful memory he only wants to forget. Again, typical Hinton. I love the crazy names she gives her characters (Rusty-James idolizes his older brother who is called simply "The Motorcycle Boy"). Her and Pynchon have THE best character names ("Meatball Mulligan"...a Pynchon character name is probably the single greatest name in all of literature...second only to "Soda Pop" and "Ponyboy" from THE OUTSIDERS).

Currently I'm reading her latest book, HAWKES HARBOR...I'm glad I didn't buy it because already I can tell it's not going to be very good. This is her first attempt at writing a real "adult" book. Gone are the teenage thugs and grimy back alleys of Oklahoma. Instead it's some sort of Vampire/thriller. The cover has an endorsement from R.L. Stine (creator of the GOOSEBUMPS series that were popular back when I was cutting my teeth on books). So yeah...if that doesn't tell you anything I don't know...maybe you need a big, pink neon sign that says "Crap."

It's too bad too, I was really looking forward to reading this thing. Hinton is an amazing writer. She wrote her first (and best) novel before she was out of High School. Over the years she's managed to churn out a series of interconnected novels for teens that depict a very satisfying (emotionally) world. There is something about the hopelessness her characters dwell in. I remember reading THE OUTSIDERS for the first time back in eighth grade...I couldn't imagine living like the Curtis boys. They live outside of mainstream society...outcasts...they're free in ways that I will never be, could never be. And yet, at the same time they are all trapped. The boys of Hinton's world have no future. There is no college for them. No high pressure, high paying job. No fancy cars or dream houses. The only thing they have to look forward to is an early grave. Until that time I couldn't imagine not going to college. It seemed to be the ultimate death sentence. At the time that was all I was hearing from my parents, my teachers, my friends..."college, college, college." Hinton's characters weren't only NOT going to college--most of them didn't even finish High School.

Despite living outside of society, her characters are not entirely "lawless." They live in a very strictly organized, pecking-order. The gangs and social classes that populate her world are just as complex as the world the members shun. Despite taking place in the late '60s and early '70s her books are pretty timeless. They have a magic quality about them...like they have happened, will happen, and are happening right at this very moment.

I don't re-read books very often, but when I fall in love with a book (and that's what it is...it's love) I will read the shit out a book. My all time most read books, ever:

THE HOBBIT
THE OUTSIDERS
THE GREAT GATSBY (have to re-read it for my fiction class next week)
THE CATCHER IN THE RYE
OF MICE AND MEN

I wish I knew what it was exactly that make these books so important to me. I think all of them have great characters. They feel real and I sympathize with them, I see myself (my life) in there stories. All of them are about losers and loners, too. I think that's interesting. I used to have Dicken's GREAT EXPECTATIONS in that list, but I tired to re-read it last year and couldn't get through it. What books do you read and read over again? Why do you do it? If you could only read one book, for the rest of you life...what book would it be?

Friday Video Blog

My Teacher is an Idiot

So I'm taking Linguistics this semester. It's a 4000 level (senior) class, big stuff...right? Me and my friend Paul are taking it together. So far we aren't too impressed with the class (it's becoming one of those where I regret buying the book because I'm not going to be reading it because, though she assigns readings...everything we need to know we're told in class). That kinda pisses me off, because at this stage of the game we should HAVE to read the textbook...but whatever.

No, this rant isn't about that. Nor is it about how boring the class is. Or about how my teacher uses the classroom smartboard to show us Wikipedia pages (on Linguistic topics). I think that's pretty unprofessional, especially for someone with a doctorate. Whatever. No, this rant is about how stupid my teacher is. Why is she stupid? Does she not know her subject? Possibly.

Let me first say that for the past year or so I've adopted a pretty smart policy: If I don't know something, I admit it. Rather than bullshit people, I just say "Hey, you know what? I don't know." I think that's a pretty intelligent thing to do/say. A really smart person is able to admit that they don't know EVERYTHING, because...hey! You don't!!! So I admire it when someone says that, really...I do.

My teacher, God bless her, admits this to us. A lot. I mean, a lot. In fact, she says "I don't know" or some variation of that so much that me and Paul decided to start keeping score. Today was our first day of keeping track. In an hour and fifteen minutes she said "I don't know" over 23 times. Now, some of those were understandable. We have a mixed class, some of us are undergrads and some are graduate students. There are three tweed jacket types. You know what I mean. The "Hey look at me, I so fucking smart...you're a dumb ass compared to me" types. These people are in all college classes, I've discovered. They usually have either two agendas:

A) They want to impress the teacher with their brilliance by agreeing with everything they say. Or they want to add a CRAP load of details to whatever the teacher has just said.

or

B) They want to embarrass the teacher by showing off, basically that they know more/better than the teacher. These people either have:

1. Mental Problems

2. Balls the size of the moon.


Now in our class we have a shit load of both types. As you can imagine our class discussions are a mixture of these people basically taking over and giving their own damn lecture (which infuriates me to no end) AND these people asking really vague or complicated questions (the kind of which that would require decades of careful research and truckloads of money to answer). I'm laying all this out for you because, honestly...there are some instances in which she NEEDS to simply say "I don't know." I'm not giving her a pass per say--I'm just sympathizing with the plight of teachers (after all even doctors can't know EVERYTHING about their fields).

That said, in the middle of her lecture/presentations...without any interruption from the class--she says "I don't know" too many times. Example: Today we were talking about different writing systems. We were talking about Chinese characters. All the sudden, out of the blue..."I don't know." What the hell? Lady, last night you could have read a book or gone online (shit, you love Wiki so much...go look it up there!). It's embarrassing. Not that she doesn't look shit up in class...oh, she does that!!! Today, with the smartboard still on she had to look something up...so she went to Google and we watched her randomly click on links. As she vainly searched for whatever she was looking for, I sat in my seat and prayed for porn. You see, I could tell she wasn't really looking at the links too closely...she was just randomly hitting the links on the first page of results. She was looking for a Coca-Cola ad in Japanese. First off lady, you should have searched for images (because that's what you wanted). Secondly, you should have powered down the smartboard because the Internet is a big, steaming pile of porn. She gave up after five minutes. I was, needless to say, disappointed.

I'm not saying she's a bad teacher. Or that she's a complete moron (she has a PHD people). I guess--she's just one of those people who are so smart they come off as mildly retarded. In short, she's a fucking idiot. A smart one, but an idiot nonetheless. I know that's an oxymoron (ha-ha) but it's true and I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. If not, just come with me to class...you'll see.

NOTE: For those of you who don't know, a smartboard is a big projector that allows an entire class to view what's on the teacher's computer screen.

All You Need Is...

As I mentioned earlier this week, something happened that hasn't happened in a long...long...long time. I heard a new Beatles album. Okay, technically I didn't and technically I did. I guess it all depends on your point of view. Let me explain. There is this Vegas show Cirque de Soleil (a bunch of crazy acrobats and other weird, artsy stuff) that features all Beatles songs. The show is called LOVE. The "new" Beatles album I heard on Monday night is the soundtrack to this show. Amazingly, it too is called LOVE.

Time to split hairs: How is this a new album? The show/soundtrack is composed of reworkings, re-toolings, and mash-ups of classic Beatles songs. All of this was done digitally. Heresy? Perhaps, however I'm a more open minded Beatles fan. So far Apple records/EMI/Columbia (whoever owns the rights to The Beatles back catalogue) has been very discriminating with what happens to these old songs. Which begs the question--why did this album happen, and why is it not just commercial fluff? The songtrack was edited together by none other than George Martin (THE man behind The Beatles), also the two surviving Beatles both agreed to the project (big deal Macca and Ringo need money, right?). Interestingly, George's daughter also agreed and...*gasp* Yoko Ono agreed with the project as well. So this thing is Beatle approved--not some corporate cash rake.

LOVE is difficult to explain. I stayed away from it when it came out because I thought it was a mere "Greatest Hits" part two/repackage. This is not the case. The record opens with an a Capella version of of "Because" (from ABBEY ROAD). Simple enough, just snip out the instruments...then things get a little weird. I guess the best way to sum up this album is that it's like having an acid trip with your entire Beatles collection playing loudly. Example, the song "Gnik Nus" which as you can tell(if you have a mirror handy) "Sun King" played back words. Actually, just the vocals are backwards...the effect is very trippy, and surprisingly--beautiful (just as much as the original version). There are digital medleys, "Drive My Car" starts out normal yet the second chorus is replaced with the chorus from "What You're Doing" before finally melting into "The Word." The song finishes with "Drive My Car" (oh yeah, did I mention that in the middle is the guitar solo from "Taxman"?). This sounds (on paper) as fucking rubbish. However, this is not the case...somehow these elements swirl together...and work, they really gel together nicely.

The best "mash-up" (which is the melody of one song coupled with the lyrics of another) is Ringo's "Octopus's Garden." This track opens with the Ringo singing slowly, and gently like he did on "Goodnight" off the White Album...you might think you're hearing "Goodnight" at first because the instrumental portion is from that earlier track. Once the chorus hits, the music shifts to the songs actual music (and things speed back up). Sound effects (God did those boys like their sound effects) are all sprinkled about in all sorts of unusual ways. Example: the "Yellow Submarine" effects play in the background of "Octopus's Garden" contributing to that song's nautical theme.

Some songs are relatively untouched, many begin with chords to one song before turning into another. Others have minor pitch changes, or have a different sound because Martin went with alternate takes of classic tracks (George's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" are treated in this manner--giving us an entirely new performance (granted you haven't heard the Beatles Anthology..and even if you have, these once rough cuts have been highly polished and have been inserted into lush, finished instrumental beds)).

My uncle David gave me his pirate copy (he got an actual copy for X-mas) the night before the funeral. On the way home I sat in my car and listened to this CD twice. The first time, all I did was smile. The second time I actually got a little teary eyed. Even though I've heard all the sounds before (minus the newly recorded orchestra for "Gently Weeps") it felt so new and fresh. I guess I never expected to have that feeling again, and getting it was a bit overwhealming (for this Beatle super-fan). It was like having a visit from a very old, dear friend. One you never thought you ever see again. I don't really have much of a desire to actually go and see the show, but I'm glad it exists, because a project like this would never have been done (by the actual Beatles production team). Usually I'm not a fan of remixes or mash-ups. They usually seem forced and are a bit hokey...I think the amount of time and talent thrown at this one has made it the smashing success it is. That, and you can't really go too bad when your raw material is so good.

I can't reccomend this album enough. It makes a great addition to older Beatle fan's collections and acts as a brilliant (great sounding) primer for new audiences. All you need is love.

Jason gives LOVE an A