Dickens URL. Big Fun. Now, when you enter this URL:
http://dickensurl.com/49c3/Under_an_accumulation_of_staggerers_no_man_can_be_considered_a_free_agent_No_man_knocks_himself_down_if_his_destiny_knocks_him_down_his_destiny_must_pick_him_up_again
You come here.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Day One: I should write in this blog
I mean, I have this dang blog. I should use it!
We're getting close to thesis-writin' & finishin' time. There are 172 days until it is due. I was joking around with another MFA student that I would just turn in a "Diary of the Last One Hundred Days" as my thesis, detailing my cranky complaints, my feud with the facilities department at the New School, a rant about various writers and/or artistic movements, a hurling of epithets at my instructors (j/k ya'll!), gossip, rumors, unsubstantiated allegations, scientific marginalia, and anything else I deem noteworthy. I might just keep a diary anyway, just because I'll never get back those treasured moments of total stress, agony and creative wrangling. Yay!
So, Day One: I set the counter at 172 days. I got a bagel because I skipped dinner last night to sit through all 2000 hours of the National Book Awards readings. While I was listening to the readings, I wrote 1-2 word impressions of each reader. Because I am really just here to serve you, my zero readers, here you go:
Laurie Halse Anderson, Chains (YA lit): TARTAN.
Frank Bidart, Watching the Spring Festival (Poetry): Ugh. Sestina.
Drew Gilpin Faust, This Republic of Suffering (Non-Fiction): Garfield, Meh.
Aleksandr Hemon, The Lazarus Project (Fiction): INDIFFERENT.
Kathi Appelt, The Underneath (YA): CATS. FUCKING CATS.
Mark Doty, Fire to Fire (Poetry): HELL YES.
Annette Gordon-Reed, The Hemingses of Monticello (Non-fic): Finally.
Rachel Kushner, Telex from Cuba (Fiction): Forgettable.
Judy Blundell, What I Saw and How I Lied (YA): Very good.
Reginald Gibbons, Creatures of a Day (Poetry): MELLIFLUOUS.
Joan Wickersham, The Suicide Index (Non-fiction): SEARING.
Peter Matthiessen, Shadow Country (Fiction): GOAT MAN.
E. Lockhart, The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks (YA): BOOB!
Richard Howard, Without Saying (Poetry): Choked turtle.
Jim Sheeler, Final Salute (Non-fic): Sentimental
Salvatore Scibona, The End (Fict): Flat planed.
Tim Tharp, The Spectacular Now (YA): Incongruous
Patricia Smith, Blood Dazzler (Poetry): Tingling
Jane Mayer, The Dark Side (Non-fic): Methodical
Marilynne Robinson, Home (Fict): Delicate
I know, its like you were there with me, right? Actually, I went on a tear taking notes about Peter Matthiessen's performance, because I felt he behaved himself quite poorly last night. Sometimes I really do think some of these old literary men are more hype than quality, and they are easily shown up by younger, fierce female writers like Joan Wickersham and Patricia Smith, who really have something to contribute and who deserve our attention much more.
Matthiessen, for one, had to follow Joan Wickersham's searing, incredible reading from her memoir about her father's suicide. And here comes this old, horny geezer, reading tired lines about the "apple bosom" of his female characters and barely stumbling his way through. The disparity could not have been more evident between them. I was so bored and uninterested in his reading that I could barely wait for him to be finished. I felt embarassed that we were forced to heap laurels upon someone so obviously from another generation, so obviously dated and so full of his own self-regard. Bah. Honestly, was there not one single book better than his for the nomination? Can we stop celebrating the work of old white men who have already been celebrated and look at what the next generation is doing already?
Ok, end rant. That's day one for you!
We're getting close to thesis-writin' & finishin' time. There are 172 days until it is due. I was joking around with another MFA student that I would just turn in a "Diary of the Last One Hundred Days" as my thesis, detailing my cranky complaints, my feud with the facilities department at the New School, a rant about various writers and/or artistic movements, a hurling of epithets at my instructors (j/k ya'll!), gossip, rumors, unsubstantiated allegations, scientific marginalia, and anything else I deem noteworthy. I might just keep a diary anyway, just because I'll never get back those treasured moments of total stress, agony and creative wrangling. Yay!
So, Day One: I set the counter at 172 days. I got a bagel because I skipped dinner last night to sit through all 2000 hours of the National Book Awards readings. While I was listening to the readings, I wrote 1-2 word impressions of each reader. Because I am really just here to serve you, my zero readers, here you go:
Laurie Halse Anderson, Chains (YA lit): TARTAN.
Frank Bidart, Watching the Spring Festival (Poetry): Ugh. Sestina.
Drew Gilpin Faust, This Republic of Suffering (Non-Fiction): Garfield, Meh.
Aleksandr Hemon, The Lazarus Project (Fiction): INDIFFERENT.
Kathi Appelt, The Underneath (YA): CATS. FUCKING CATS.
Mark Doty, Fire to Fire (Poetry): HELL YES.
Annette Gordon-Reed, The Hemingses of Monticello (Non-fic): Finally.
Rachel Kushner, Telex from Cuba (Fiction): Forgettable.
Judy Blundell, What I Saw and How I Lied (YA): Very good.
Reginald Gibbons, Creatures of a Day (Poetry): MELLIFLUOUS.
Joan Wickersham, The Suicide Index (Non-fiction): SEARING.
Peter Matthiessen, Shadow Country (Fiction): GOAT MAN.
E. Lockhart, The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks (YA): BOOB!
Richard Howard, Without Saying (Poetry): Choked turtle.
Jim Sheeler, Final Salute (Non-fic): Sentimental
Salvatore Scibona, The End (Fict): Flat planed.
Tim Tharp, The Spectacular Now (YA): Incongruous
Patricia Smith, Blood Dazzler (Poetry): Tingling
Jane Mayer, The Dark Side (Non-fic): Methodical
Marilynne Robinson, Home (Fict): Delicate
I know, its like you were there with me, right? Actually, I went on a tear taking notes about Peter Matthiessen's performance, because I felt he behaved himself quite poorly last night. Sometimes I really do think some of these old literary men are more hype than quality, and they are easily shown up by younger, fierce female writers like Joan Wickersham and Patricia Smith, who really have something to contribute and who deserve our attention much more.
Matthiessen, for one, had to follow Joan Wickersham's searing, incredible reading from her memoir about her father's suicide. And here comes this old, horny geezer, reading tired lines about the "apple bosom" of his female characters and barely stumbling his way through. The disparity could not have been more evident between them. I was so bored and uninterested in his reading that I could barely wait for him to be finished. I felt embarassed that we were forced to heap laurels upon someone so obviously from another generation, so obviously dated and so full of his own self-regard. Bah. Honestly, was there not one single book better than his for the nomination? Can we stop celebrating the work of old white men who have already been celebrated and look at what the next generation is doing already?
Ok, end rant. That's day one for you!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Updates on books for a change
I'm back in the swing of reviewing work -- I have three big reviews that I'm currently working on, and they will all be coming out in the fall. Lately, I have such a passion for debut novelists -- I want to give these people the critical reception they deserve after launching their (hopefully successful) publishing careers. It is what I will want if I ever get my work scraped together enough to publish, so I feel it is only right to give that to them.
Also, it is pretty exciting to see the new generation of writers -- there could be something amazing in the mix, you never know. My giddy book nerd instincts are all aflame these days.
On a totally unrelated note, about 5 a.m. this morning I woke up and reached for whatever book was in bed with me (I typically sleep with 3-4 books in the bed). I grabbed a copy of an old George RR Martin paperback, the first of his A Song of Ice and Fire series. I started re-reading and realized just how much I enjoyed those 1000+ page books. Say what you will about the nerdiness of that, but Martin is quite good at what he does.
Whereas Tolkien was more of a mythologist -- he brought the language of saga and myth to the fantasy/sci fi novel -- Martin is, in my opinion, a very keen political writer. His work features dozens of characters, reflecting a wide variety of houses and interests, in a epic which is just as much about the politics of a nation as it is about good, old-fashioned sword-and-sandals fantasy. What I love about these books is the way the plot lines swoop in and around each other, getting entangled, becoming further complicated and elaborate. Personally, I think the swords/dragons angle of the book is almost beside the point -- it is the dynastic wrangling that makes these books so addictive. While Tolkien made you feel like you were reading noble, grand prose (a bit like the Bible), Martin makes you feel like you're reading a really good political analysis.
His next one in the line is out in September. I'm dying to get a review copy and write something really giving Martin the credit he deserves, but I think the mainstream review publications are a little wary of him still. Time will tell if his work endures -- but I'm willing to bet he's recognized by mainstream reviewers eventually, much the same way that Stephen King has.
Also, it is pretty exciting to see the new generation of writers -- there could be something amazing in the mix, you never know. My giddy book nerd instincts are all aflame these days.
On a totally unrelated note, about 5 a.m. this morning I woke up and reached for whatever book was in bed with me (I typically sleep with 3-4 books in the bed). I grabbed a copy of an old George RR Martin paperback, the first of his A Song of Ice and Fire series. I started re-reading and realized just how much I enjoyed those 1000+ page books. Say what you will about the nerdiness of that, but Martin is quite good at what he does.
Whereas Tolkien was more of a mythologist -- he brought the language of saga and myth to the fantasy/sci fi novel -- Martin is, in my opinion, a very keen political writer. His work features dozens of characters, reflecting a wide variety of houses and interests, in a epic which is just as much about the politics of a nation as it is about good, old-fashioned sword-and-sandals fantasy. What I love about these books is the way the plot lines swoop in and around each other, getting entangled, becoming further complicated and elaborate. Personally, I think the swords/dragons angle of the book is almost beside the point -- it is the dynastic wrangling that makes these books so addictive. While Tolkien made you feel like you were reading noble, grand prose (a bit like the Bible), Martin makes you feel like you're reading a really good political analysis.
His next one in the line is out in September. I'm dying to get a review copy and write something really giving Martin the credit he deserves, but I think the mainstream review publications are a little wary of him still. Time will tell if his work endures -- but I'm willing to bet he's recognized by mainstream reviewers eventually, much the same way that Stephen King has.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
BBC Headlines: Crisis! Loo Shortage!
We begin with the ever-conscientious British Parliament: MPs take on the cistern. Apparently the public toilets in England need some overhauling.
The best part about that article, though, is one of the pictures embedded in it:
Caption: Phyllis Starkey is on a mission to solve Britain's loo shortage
That poor woman, forever associated with "Britain's loo shortage." Maybe when you google that, you will get Phyllis Starkey's face...?!?
This next one just shows you that I'm becoming desensitized to the BBC's terse headlines style. The headline is 'Policeman praised for mud rescue'. Nope, he did not rescue the mud as this headline seems to imply. He rescued two children from the mud. Prepositions! A dying breed.
When all else fails, the Phoenix tries shake and sprinkle.
And last but not least, the disabled bowler avoids prison, but the lollipop man attacker is imprisoned. Tough luck on that last one.
The best part about that article, though, is one of the pictures embedded in it:
Caption: Phyllis Starkey is on a mission to solve Britain's loo shortage
That poor woman, forever associated with "Britain's loo shortage." Maybe when you google that, you will get Phyllis Starkey's face...?!?
This next one just shows you that I'm becoming desensitized to the BBC's terse headlines style. The headline is 'Policeman praised for mud rescue'. Nope, he did not rescue the mud as this headline seems to imply. He rescued two children from the mud. Prepositions! A dying breed.
When all else fails, the Phoenix tries shake and sprinkle.
And last but not least, the disabled bowler avoids prison, but the lollipop man attacker is imprisoned. Tough luck on that last one.
Gay Marriages More Egalitarian
There's a great article in the NY Times today about recent studies about same-sex marriage and what they suggest about the role of gender in marriage. I'm quite excited about this article, because I've been saying for years that marriage, for women, is a bad deal. (I believe the exact, inflammatory phrase I use to upset my more conservative Southern family is, "Marriage is a form of legal prostitution for women.")
Here's my favorite bit:
“Heterosexual married women live with a lot of anger about having to do the tasks not only in the house but in the relationship,” said Esther D. Rothblum, a professor of women’s studies at San Diego State University. “That’s very different than what same-sex couples and heterosexual men live with.”
Thank you. That is exactly the point I've been trying to make for years. Along with all the really good reasons to let gays and lesbians get married -- it's the right thing to do, etc. -- there is the additional reason that same-sex marriage will expose the fact that our traditional notions of marriage are not based on any kind of biological, gendered roles for men and women but purely on cultural myths that persist in our society. And that is good for everyone. It is good for gay and lesbian folks because it further challenges this idea that they are somehow "aberrant" for being women with so-called 'masculine' traits or men with 'feminine' traits. And it helps heterosexuals to understand that a relationship isn't about "a man does this and a woman does that" which does nothing but further divide and alienate men and women.
Not to mention the fact that I'm looking forward to the Bridezilla battles between women and their former gay wedding planners now looking to book the same venues. It is on!
Here's my favorite bit:
“Heterosexual married women live with a lot of anger about having to do the tasks not only in the house but in the relationship,” said Esther D. Rothblum, a professor of women’s studies at San Diego State University. “That’s very different than what same-sex couples and heterosexual men live with.”
Thank you. That is exactly the point I've been trying to make for years. Along with all the really good reasons to let gays and lesbians get married -- it's the right thing to do, etc. -- there is the additional reason that same-sex marriage will expose the fact that our traditional notions of marriage are not based on any kind of biological, gendered roles for men and women but purely on cultural myths that persist in our society. And that is good for everyone. It is good for gay and lesbian folks because it further challenges this idea that they are somehow "aberrant" for being women with so-called 'masculine' traits or men with 'feminine' traits. And it helps heterosexuals to understand that a relationship isn't about "a man does this and a woman does that" which does nothing but further divide and alienate men and women.
Not to mention the fact that I'm looking forward to the Bridezilla battles between women and their former gay wedding planners now looking to book the same venues. It is on!
Monday, June 9, 2008
BBC Headlines: Getting Eaten by Dragons
Ah the weekend. Full of wonderful, weird stories from the BBC.
Like this one, which goes into detail about how likely you are to be eaten by a komodo dragon if you wash ashore on an island, dehydrated and near death. Not likely, if there's only one or two and you have enough strength to pelt it with stones. Good to know!
And this one: Cancer boy's stories help charity. Seriously?!?! Cancer boy? This kid survives a terrible disease and writes two books, the money from which he donates to a charity, and all you can come up with is CANCER BOY?!?! I would have at least thrown in some alliteration: 'Cancer boy chronicles case for charity cash' has a very nice ring to it.
This one takes a minute to unpack. The headline is: Stab death of porn charge ex-Pc. What's going on here, you ask? Ok. A former police constable who was up on charges of child pornography was stabbed to death. But I don't know how you're going to figure that out from the headline, which is weird and garbled.
I wish there was a picture for this one: Kitten rescued by vacuum cleaner.
And finally for those panda-porn aficionados out there: Giant panda sex secrets revealed. Oh yes, there is video.
Like this one, which goes into detail about how likely you are to be eaten by a komodo dragon if you wash ashore on an island, dehydrated and near death. Not likely, if there's only one or two and you have enough strength to pelt it with stones. Good to know!
And this one: Cancer boy's stories help charity. Seriously?!?! Cancer boy? This kid survives a terrible disease and writes two books, the money from which he donates to a charity, and all you can come up with is CANCER BOY?!?! I would have at least thrown in some alliteration: 'Cancer boy chronicles case for charity cash' has a very nice ring to it.
This one takes a minute to unpack. The headline is: Stab death of porn charge ex-Pc. What's going on here, you ask? Ok. A former police constable who was up on charges of child pornography was stabbed to death. But I don't know how you're going to figure that out from the headline, which is weird and garbled.
I wish there was a picture for this one: Kitten rescued by vacuum cleaner.
And finally for those panda-porn aficionados out there: Giant panda sex secrets revealed. Oh yes, there is video.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
BBC Headlines: Oh, Blah.
This picture pretty much sums up how I feel about the BBC website:
You have to read this whole story: Red faces over 'blah' drug answer. Someone actually responded to a government request about drugs in prison by writing "Blah." And it "only occurred in the version sent to journalists." Someone out there is generating material for the Absurd/Alliterative Headlines Department...
You have to read this whole story: Red faces over 'blah' drug answer. Someone actually responded to a government request about drugs in prison by writing "Blah." And it "only occurred in the version sent to journalists." Someone out there is generating material for the Absurd/Alliterative Headlines Department...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
