Up A Mountain, and Down Some

Jon Krakauer is a writer I just came across, but I have devoured his short list of books. I do not tend to like specific books, instead focusing on specific writers, and its is a lot easier to pack away Krakauer than Sherman Alexie or Kurt Vonnegut.

I cried after reading Into the Wild. I do not plan on watching the recent movie about it because this is the first book ever where I don't want my imagery influenced by a directors, even if it's Sean Penn. Good books leave concrete images in your head. If they leave amorphous shapes that you need a movie to shape up then something was lost in translation. Don't take that as my stance against Hollywood or people making movies out of books. It just was a damn fine story to begin with, regardless of medium.

Looking back at lists of books I have read, I am amazed at how I have forgotten entire details from certain books. The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros, which I just read last year, is lost to me. I remember liking the book, but I guess not enough to really enjoy it. However, Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven will always stay with me. The mix of gumshoe reporting and honest analysis of America's homegrown religion, Mormonism, is signature of Krakauer's style. All his books are honest, no spin, which is why those involved in them sometimes get pissed at him. He deals in very personal subject. The death of a lone boy in the Alaskan wilderness. A warped faith fueled double murder in rural Utah. Or a disaster on Mount Everest. I have to sympathize for all those families because Krakauer has the wonderful ability to craft final moments to his readers. In Into Thin Air, the subject of this post, he relates the final moments of an experienced Everest guide, Rob Hall, as he is trapped at the top of the mountain in a freak storm. Krakauer presents the time through a series of radio snippets that Hall shared with a camp lower on the summit. They eventually patch him through to his wife back in New Zealand where his last words to her are: "I love you. Sleep well, my sweetheart. Please don't worry too much." Remember, Hall is at THE TOP OF THE WORLD IN A HURRICANE-FORCE SNOWSTORM! The preceding conversation with his wife was rather cheerful, with both dismissing the fact that the had no hope. His wife, also an experienced climber, was later quoted as saying anyone stuck up there might as well be on the moon.

Krakauer makes it feel like he is there in the radio tent exchanging the dispatches. However, he is actually at another camp, trying to save his own life after stumbling off the summit in the early throes of the storm. However, his journalistic integrity shines through and he creates a highly involved narrative of the events from his research.

Krakauer also writes, gut-wrenchingly, that while he lay in his tent, another climber stumbled in. Being in better shape, this climber tried to rouse Krakauer and tell him to come out and shine lights and bang pots around the camp. His hope was to create a makeshift beacon for those trying to escape the whiteout. Krakauer, fighting off exhaustion and frost bite decides to stay, later learning that only 350 yards away there were survivors trying to find there way back in. During his research back in the states, Krakauer discovers that once he did go out into the storm to search for survivors he thought he saw Andy Harris, another climber that perished on the mountain. For months, Krakauer's report was considered the official report of Harris' death. That Krakauer saw him, but in the whiteout and scramble for human lives, though he was OK for the momemnt. It was assumed Harris died of exposure and his body never recovered. Krakauer later discovers, during a routine interview, that he mistook another survivor for Harris. He later had to tell the authorities and Harris's family that he was wrong and that no one exactly knew what had happened to Harris. Some later reports believe he took a wrong step in the storm and fell of a ridge and the face of the mountain.

As readers, we all find this interesting, but we need to remember this all happened recently and in our lifetimes. These aren't stories of the Titanic or Mt. Vesuvius. These are people whose families could read this very blog and critique what I have to say. Writing from the comfort of safe haven, Krakauer, justifiably, presents, the climbers that day as archetypes we are familiar with. A posh Manhattan socialite that drags accessories and portable TVs up the mountain. A Japanese housewife trying to defy the gender roles in her country. Rival climbers trying to beat each other to the top. Of course, all these people are not that simple, but we need to create instant bonds with them, if not, then the book is lost. And because Krakauer wrote the book (He first wrote a magazine article about the piece) as a form of catharsis, the entire plot is framed as his way of handling the events. Being that the book is cathartic*, even Krakuer admits it is not his best, and it does feel a little weaker then his others, a little bit more jumbled at first before it all becomes clear. With the other books he had the distance of an investigative reporter with no investments in the stories he chronicled. Of course, it is still a great book, only diminished by the fact that Krakauer is trying to fight off personal demons at the same time. Others have critiqued his narrative saying he ignored certain stories (particularly about his own climbing slip-ups) and did not interview everyone involved. To many, including myself, he is the official voice of that tragedy, but everyone has a story and everyone wants to make sense of the event in their own way. His just happened to gain the most attention because he is an amazing journalist!

Peace!

*In the introduction to the book Krakauer says, "I agree that readers are often poorly served when an author writes as an act of catharsis, as I have done here." That is a sharp piece of writing advice. Most of the posts on this blog are cathartic, if not masturbatory, and you can judge the quality of them. Must be the whole writing for an audience of one:yourself. However, like Krakauer, I hope to pull something from all this.

Books I Should Have Already Read, #2

I am back after another long hiatus. I did spend a lot of time watching Transformers, but its the usual excuses for why I have ignored the blog.

And to return, here is the long awaited second installment of a blog series that premiered earlier in the year.

Books I Should Have Already Read #2

Watership Down

Damn, I loved this book. And not just because it is about rabbits! Rabbits that sing songs and tell animal myths to each other! Rabbits that survive against countless enemies, including themselves. Rabbits with names like Cowslip, Bigwig, and Blackberry! OH MY NO!

I am not going to deny that the sheer amount of bunnies in this book didn't make me heart get twitterpatted. I adore rabbits, mostly because, like everyone, I can conjure up instant images of them. However, living in PR, I had not bunnies to chase around or even look at. We had lizards. Lots and lots of lizards. Anoles are just not that evocative. The first time I saw an Eastern Cottontail rabbit pop out of the forsythia bushes on the Ithaca College campus, I freaked! Here is a reenactment. Just this tall awkward guy squatting over some grass and clapping his hands saying....

BUNNNY! EEEEE! YAY!

I think someone might have called Campus Safety upon seeing me. But, I got away. Quick as a bunny!

I don't know much about writing. Have you read what I post here? And I know even less about writing children's literature, but I can see the classics when they come across.

Watership Down never, ever talks down to its audience. For a book compiled from bedtime stories Richard Adams told his daughters, it never loses it edge, which is weird since it is book about rabbits-the iconic prey animal.

Imagine being one of his daughters and seeing this wonderful gift your father gave you. If your parents ever had some goofy character they threw around in stories and yarns then imagine Chambon* or El Culebron** becoming this modern classic. And then they made a movie. And an animated series. And they referenced it Donnie Darko, Lost, Gundam, and Wallace & Gromit. That George Lucas considered it one of his inspirations for the uber-mythology of Star Wars. That there are over 300 editions and it have never been out of print! Yeah, awesome! Thanks, dad!

People that are not into fictional universes often ask why would someone get so wrapped up in fake people and events like with Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Doctor Who, or The Rocky Horror Picture show. There are as many answers as their are cult-classics and geek fests, but I always appreciate the amount of effort put into creating these fake universes. Great ones reflect our own real world and they should always invite another visit, whether it be through tons of crazy stuff happening in the background (ex., The Simpsons) or the mythology in Watership Down. Adams actually researched rabbits, discovering that wild bunnies live in a quasi-caste system with some dominant males ruling warrens. That the cutesy animals are actually vicious little fighters that can tear each other apart when fighting over food or mates. And that the bucolic imagery of rabbits living happily in the fields is false. Everything kills them.

The book portrays a group of English rabbits (The only rabbits in the world to actually live underground) that listen to the prophecy of one pipsqueak named Fiver. The group flees their home because Fiver feels it will be soon destroyed and then travel across the English countryside looking to establish a new colony. Realizing they are all guys (Do'h!), they try to find some female rabbits to populate the new home. Hilarity does not ensue. But we do get adventure, heroism, tragedy, and action!

Adams gives the rabbits the standard commando team breakdown. Of course, this probably wasn't as cliched back then, but you got: the tough one (Bigwig), the smart one (Blackberry), the leader (Hazel), the first lieutenant (Silver), the annoying one (Fiver), etc. He throws in a villain (General Woundwort) and disastrous uncontrollable events like dog attacks and farmers. He creates a dichotomy between domestic and wild rabbits. The band tries to free some domesticated females from the farm and, in a funny exchange, begin to fantasize about the dolled-up domesticated females with their ears that hang down or fluffy Angora fur! The rabbits have a language called Lapine which consists of a sort Hawaiian/Celtic, onomatopoeic jumble of letters. "Hrududu" means any man-made vehicle, "Silflay' for eating out in the open, and "Hlessi" for a rogue wandering rabbit. A true triumph the imagination.

Watership Down has a certain darkness to it, showing that nature, while adorable, is vicious. The rabbits believe in a sort of rabbit Robin Hood named El-ahrairah (Yeah, I can't say it either) who defied the Creator (Firth) and brought doom upon all rabbits In a take on the Judeo-Christian original sin concept, El-ahrairah's insubordination destroyed the equality of all creatures. Firth gave all the other animals unique attributes to better hunt and kill rabbits.

"For Firth has give the fox and the weasel cunning hearts and sharp teeth, and to the cat he has given silent feet and eyes that can see in the dark..."

Other children's literature would dismiss the sheer suffering of rabbits. We would know that the fox and weasel eat them, but our band will never say such things. It will be like Finding Nemo where the sharks are bumbling fools! Yay! Adams does not dismiss any of this. He does have Firth give the rabbits great speed and intelligence, but still hands them the shaft.

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, cunning, prince with the swift warning."

I love the message and it sums up why I wish I had read this book as a kid. Kids will be "Sweet rabbits on adventures!" But as adults we can come back to this intelligent read and be soothed by the rabbit's travels, whether how saddening. So no matter who your enemies are (Foxes, bill collectors, rampaging robots, the landlord, your boss, Republicans, etc.), take a lesson from the rabbits and keep fighting because it will only enrage them more and, hey, you might even make it. Adams is not the first to write down such a philosophy. During the Spanish Civil War, author and bane of my existence during Spanish AP literature class, Miguel De Unamuno told a Nationalist leader, "You will win, but you will not convince." That same spirit lead the US civil rights era. I am sure everyone has heard or read the famous quote "It is better to die on your feet then live on your knees," which is often attributed to Emiliano Zapata. "The people united will never be divided," is a close second behind "Fur coat and cowboy hats aren't immune to tear gas!" when it comes to my favorite protest chants. However, Adams is the first time I have ever heard those words and been actually moved. It is one thing to get angry or challenged, but the rabbits pluck and determination just made me feel good.

I don't do the book justice. I get all lackadaisical when talking about things that I truly enjoyed. I am right now reading a phenomenal biography on Charles Schulz that I will share on the blog soon, and already I am struggling with the words. I hope you read the book or even check out the old 70's animated movie, which is up on You Tube. I have no idea who reads this blog, but if some random parent stumbles across this, maybe looking for the Transformers DVD or something, I hope that you get your kids to read this book. Some of said that the violence and darkness in it (especially the movie) are too much for kids***. We spend a lot of time as a society trying to hide ourselves from the ugliness in the world. Nothing makes me sadder or angrier then when someone says, "I don't watch the news because it is just so depressing." or "I don't get involved in politics." AAARRRGGGGHHH! It is so easy to dismiss things, instead of trying to understand and challenge them. The rabbits could have easily laid down and waited to be eaten by one of "the thousand." Instead they fought, challenging the role that the creator itself gave them. The book's biggest achievement is demonstrating that courage, compassion, and cunning exist in creatures most, incorrectly, view as cute and dumb.

PEACE!

*What my nephew calls his imaginary friend. I think it's supposed to be French. "Chambon, I am with zee Freeeencch Reziztanze!

**Some imaginary wrestle my mom would call herself when we played fight. It means the big snake, which is getting a bit to Oedipal for me.

*** Don't worry! The story has a marvelously happy ending! No joke, a bit realistic since even the pluckiest wild rabbit dies of old age at four years, but happy nonetheless!

EEEEEEE!!!!

Transformers comes out today on DVD! EEEEEE!!!!

Deleted scenes where we get to see more of Starscream! EEEEEEE!!!!

Commentary track where we get to here Michael Bay explain the beauty of the 360- degree shot! EEEEEEE!

BUY IT NOW! RENT IT NOW! WATCH IT!

Peace!*


*Oh, I know smart ass. It is funny that I rave about Transformers the day after I got on my soapbox about sustainability. I'm keeping it real, nerd and environmentalist and all.

World Blog Action Day

In celebration of World Blog Day, here is my little essay on the issues surrounding the "new school" vs. "old school" debate of sustainability. I need to add one cavaet. I realize we are all striving for the same goal and that sustainability is an attempt to market environmental concerns to a new group of people, but I have meet many a person who treat sustainability as some sort of avant garde thinking. Environmentalism, believing in systems beyond just yourself, was pretty avant garde back in the 60's and still is today. The essay is more a response to the sustainability groupies then the actual concept itself, no matter how much of a tongue twister it is.

Enjoy!

_________________________________________

Here’s an idea! Here is how we will reclaim the environment; the whole environment! Forget sustainability! Throw away all it’s derivatives as well: sustainable style, sustainable design, sustainable art, etc. Revert to the actual word environment, realizing it already encompasses everything. You don’t need a Venn Diagram to see that. Both proponents and detractors of environmentalism pigeon hole the concept of environmentalism as something in the exclusive realm of nature. That is where the slur “tree hugger” comes from and why we call our movement as “green” movement.

"Hey, meet the new boss!Same as the old boss!"

Such stereotypes make the movement seem like it never left Walden Pond. That while everything around us falls apart and ecological services go to the way of Woolworth’s, we slap on Birkenstocks and skitter up and down the Adirondack trail. We did leave Walden Pond and we never lived there. The environment in environmentalism means home and, looking at the bigger picture, my home includes the material in my walls and decisions of my politicians. Not just the cries of songbirds in the backyard. Sustainability wants us to think that this is all new and grand. “We killed old-school environmentalism and replaced it with this new concept you will all love!” However, what is so new about looking at the big picture? Even flawed concepts like Malthus and the 60’s Population Bomb viewed environmental degradation beyond how many trees would be bulldozed to make room. They talked about food production and potential conflict over limited resources. The concepts of agriculture productivity and land availability are wide ranging. Americans talked about energy issues and conflict about them back in the 70’s. The English enclosure movement didn’t just fragment ecosystems, but also brought all the issues of feudalism and serfdom. The environmentalist movement has cast the net wide for years, only now realizing that this is the real way to go!

There is power in the word “environmentalism” It conjures up images and whether those images are stereotypical or dynamic, its effect is instantaneous. Sustainability is a conceptual curveball. What is the exact definition of sustainability? I have heard many and they all require a good four to five sentences, or a Herman Melville-esque sequence of punctuation. However, here is a nice definition of environmentalism.

It’s caring about where you live. That’s planet Earth.

Here is another example of imagery and word play. Think about the word “attorney.” What comes to mind? Maybe an empowered Atticus Finch? Johhny Cochran? Stuffy English magistrates with white wigs? Now imagine the word “legal.” Well, what does the hell does that really mean. Sheets of paper that are 11” by 17?” Just like you can’t imagine a legal system without the players in it, you can’t imagine sustainability with the life support systems it means to help. Environment is a powerful word. So is the word environmentalist. That word has done innumerable things. It has pissed off powerful people, created powerful people, cost jobs, found new jobs, asked questions, protested, bombed, sung, cried, voted, chanted, rioted, and had a good time trying to save the world. What do the hell do you even call someone all about sustainability? A sustainability advocate? A sustainabilitizer? Sustainability groupie? Many consider Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, a mother of traditional environmentalism. But did anyone call her a tree hugger back in 1962? Chemical companies attacked her on the fact that she was a woman and that she wrote a book in common vernacular for the masses. Save the birds is a big message in her book, but another big message is “Don’t trust big business.” Environmentalism had dynamic though before the recent surge in sustainability.

What does the average, American third grade class, 4H club, or Lion’s Club do on Earth day? They probably go and pick up litter from a scenic vista. Sustainability sneers at this as too “old school.” It’s a very Western, particularly American, thing to do. Go pick up litter to save all the fishies and birdies. Impoverished people in the slums of Mexico City view those rubbish heaps as treasure troves. And, yes, it is a very American thing to do. The rest of the world better understand the “Big E” environmentalism I subscribe to. But just think about that spot. Maybe it used to be a real nice pond filled with fish that Gramps used to catch. An idyllic pond with fish a jumpin’ and frogs’ a croakin.’ All that garbage on the pond makes Gramps say, “Ah, back in my day that used to be a pond. I wish I could take little Billy there to fish, but, alas, the pond is filthy.” Then, however, that third grade class shows up with their limited view of the environment and we got a nice pond. Now Gramps can take little Billy down to the pond so that he and his grandson can bond. Maybe little Billy won’t spend so much time in front of the Xbox since he will really like to fish. And he will lose a couple of pounds because it takes a while to walk to the pond. And maybe little Billy will want to stay and raise his own family in said town because he wants to share these memories with his own son. Thanks third graders!

I realize this argument is silly and oversimplified. But isn’t it grand how a piece of land can fight obesity and gentrification, while strengthening family bonds? Don’t dismiss the power of a nice piece of a land or a nice community because it will have ripple effects. If a group of inner-city kids cleans up a vacant lot and turns it into a community park, then maybe kids will stay safe and not join gangs. Again, that is an oversimplified example, but it happens and myriad groups strive for such stability. Maybe the people building a community park in the city aren’t thinking about the Redwood trees in California, but being able to walk to a park right in your neighborhood is better for the whole biosphere then everyone driving to a community park.

Sustainability groupies point out their “new” model emphasizes the economic and social issues that environmentalists always forget. Sustainability freaks think about people, profits, prosperity, and planet. However, did our financial decisions only now begin to effect other things besides our wallets. If I buy from a store that treats its employees like crap then that is an environmental decision. Maybe those employees are my neighbors and those neighbors make up my environment. Maybe the store pays people nothing and my neighbor has to pull a double on Election Day. No one wins elections by just one vote, but maybe my neighbor’s vote would have helped get a politician in power who support renewable energy. Maybe the hard working neighbor doesn’t have the time to go to the community clean-up or try to help the poor, who have to go live in the woods at the city limits, because he has to work all day. Maybe that business forces Nicaraguan women to sew sweaters for nine cents a day so that they have even less time to get their community and countries out of the profiteer’s stranglehold. Those women live in my environment, the whole planet, and we will need their help to save the entire biosphere. Maybe I should stop supporting that business.

Just one more maybe. Maybe a sustainability hard liner reads this and says, “Stupid Garik! That is exactly what we are saying.” I know that, but I feel I already had inklings about this when I was just a kid reading 50 Things You Can Do To Save The Earth. It isn’t to say that I was some sort of prodigy, but just that I realized environment where I lived. Why would I want to drink dirty water from the river? Yeah, that makes the birds sick, but it would also make me sick and eight year old Garik pretty much looked out for number one!

The environmental movement has always had room for the bankers, bureaucrats, and, impoverished. The biggest flaw the movement made wasn’t in picking too narrow a viewpoint, but in failing to vocalize how wide ranging the inherent movement was. Sustainability isn’t something new; it is just a reaction to environmentalism earlier misstep. If there were kings and queens of sustainability then they were just environmentalists realizing there were just too many people who thought negatively about the word “environment.” They made up a new word. I don’t think environmentalism needs to die. The power in that word and concept needs to go back to its roots. It’s roots as an idea that everyone wants a good place to live. Some of us already have a comfortable place to start from and others need to get out from poverty or desperation. Environmentalism’s roots as a conceptually American idea born of Muir, Thoreau, Leopold, and even Nixon* and given to the world to adapt and change to every community and ecosystem This is “Big E” environmentalism. The environmentalism we always needed, before detractors said it was just bunch of hippies in the woods, and supporters made it actually a bunch of hippies in the woods. Preaching sustainability as something that will blow environmentalism away only makes a bunch of good-hearted and caring people circle the wagons and shoot in. It makes it easier for those that fail or just don’t want to look at the big picture to profit in the long term. Only a fool would say “I only care about the trees! Fuck everything else!” And we have had such fools (i.e., hippies), but we have always had intelligent people waiting to make a difference for the entire biosphere that includes all of nature’s creations, and those of humanity.

Peace!


Picture source originally UNESCO.

Actual Posts!

Monday October 15th is the first ever Blog Action Day and the lowly Fear of the Blank Page will join a digital global voice on the environment. As of this posts, there are 11,867 blogs registered with the action day. I will be rocking the blog-o-sphere with my soap box speech on "Big E" environmentalism.

I have embedded a YouTube promo video created by the Blog day organizers. I hope you check it out and tell any of your blogging friends to join up. Even if you don't think of yourself as green, the environment is too broad a term to be claimed by any one belief or group*. What do you think of all the issues surrounding the environment? If you think global warming isn't that big of a deal then say why? If you feel powerless as to do anything, then why? If you feel empowered to do something then tell everyone what made you empowered! SPEAK! DO SOMETHING!



I had hoped to do a weekly series of posts about the environment leading up to the day, but I forgot. Instead, you got Huckleberry Piggy and Carson Rabbit Sawyer.

Peace!



*I am looking at you, hippies! Remember folks, hippies don't do anything. Environmentalists do!

Great Works Defiled

Huckleberry Piggy!

I'm a picaresque, conflicted American hero! Maybe I am a nascent racist that can't escape the social norms of my 19th century ante-bellum South! Or maybe I will rise up an do the right thing? In the words of the great George Saunders, I ask, "How can anyone be truly free in a country as violent and stupid as ours?" I represent an America where one follows their moral conscience, even though it might not be what society expect or want of us Oh, and I wear a straw hat.


Rabbit Sawyer !


I show up at the end of Piggy's book and take much of the human drama out of it. I only care about what you can gain from others, whether from adventure novels, river grifters, or just bamboozling Aunt Kate. I represent an America where you look out for number one. Don't trust me to paint your fence. I wear a straw hat too, because it's kind of what we did during the Antebellum period.

"Wait, what the hell, why does Piggy get more text than me!?"

"Because, I'm a complex character! You're one-sided and lack depth!"

"Whatever, at least kids don't try to blast out 11th English grade papers about me. Most just read the Cliff Notes anyway."

"Hemingway said all American literature comes from my book and he can beat you up!"

"Damn old man. Forget him and that fish. And those Hills Like White Elephants!"

Peace!*


*Actual posts to come soon, folks. World Environmental Blog Day on October 15th and the second installment of Books I Should Have Already Read!"