The Year in Books: 2007

Hope you all had a Merry Chrismahunakwanzeid! The New Year is just four days away and hope that is equally festive.

In one of my few blog traditions, I present my year in books. If there is one thing I like more than reading books, it is talking about books.

First, the raw list...

)1 Blind Man's Bluff - Sherry Sontag, Christopher Drew, and Annette Drew
2) Cat's Eye - Margaret Atwood
3) Big Box Swindle - Stacy Mitchell
4) Strapped - Tamara Draut
5) Blame It On The Rain - Laura Lee
6)Spook - Mary Roach
7) Ransom - Jay McInerney
8) The Last King of Scotland - Giles Foden
9) Man Without a Country - Kurt Vonnegut
10) Cod - Mark Kurlansky
11) God's Politics - Jim Wallis
12) Stories Rabbits Tell - Susan E. Davis and Margo Demello
13) Platypus - Ann Moyal
14) The Big Oyster - Mark Kurlansky
15) The Food Chain - Geoff Nicholson
16) Perfect Circle - Sean Stewart
17) Rant - Chuck Palahniuk
18) Suburban Safari - Hannah Holmes
19) The Demon in The Freezer - Richard Preston
20) In Persuasion Nation - George Saunders
21) Glamorama - Bret Easton Ellis
22) Snowcrash - Neal Stephenson
23) Sandworms of Dune - Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson
24) The Three Only Things - Robert Moss
25) Snow Flower and the Secret Fan - Lisa See
26) Reefer Madness - Eric Schlosser
27) The Braindead Megaphone - George Saunders
28) Songbook - Nick Hornby
29) Watership Down - Richard Adams
30) Reservation Blues - Sherman Alexie
31) Into Thin Air - Jon Krakauer
32) Schulz and Peanuts - David Michaelis
33) The United States of Arugula - David Kamp
34) Rosemary's Baby - Ira Levin
35) The Stepford Wives - Ira Levin
36) A Guinea Pig's History of Biology - Jim Endersby

I always try to shoot for fifty books a year, but I now realized that was a lofty goal. I cheated on my old lists, counting those books I read for school. Not textbooks, of course, but those paperbacks professors put in syllabi. Botany of Desire for Science Writing? Frankenstein in Science Fiction? Stone Butch Blues in Personal Essay? Well, alright!

Amanda told me that at a conference she attended, one of the speakers cited a study that found "genius" level people read, at least, 23 books a year. I'm no genius, but it's good to know that I can apply for the club. Look at my list, guys! 36 books! No, I don't know the 500th digit of Pi, but 36 books! Woo!

The book club fizzled out this year after folks moved away or, myself included, took on extra work. I still remember the first meeting in Stewart Park, looking for the lawn chair with a hand-drawn sign reading "Ithaca Book Club." Some really great reads, especially books that I would have never picked up; particularly Perfect Circle by Sean Stewart, which is on the list. I hope everyone from the club continues to read and enjoy!

Other notables books on the list include...

Rant by Chuck Palahniuk for making me want to puke. And in the purely biological sense, mind you. A great read, albeit not my favorite Palahniuk books. I understand how Palahniuk's previous book, Haunted, made folks queasy. Legend says that several folks passed out while he read an excerpt of it. Cannibalism, doll raping, and dangerous masturbating never got me as queasy as Rant's "toiletery swarm" and the boy that can tell each girl in town from her used tampons and each man from the leftovers in a condom's reservoir tip. ACK! FREAK OUT!

Strapped by Tamara Draut for showing me I'm not alone. Forget the aging boomers and old-timers that say use Generation-Y 20 and 30-somethings have it easy. And that's all I will say because I can feel myself get into rant mood. I'm too close to the subject of the "starving young professional." I will not do the book justice by ranting. Please read it, especially if you a parent that doesn't understand why we can't get jobs with health care or vacation time.

Stories Rabbits Tell by Susan E. Davis and Margo Demello and Watership Down by Richard Adams because I love rabbits. Guinea pigs, too!



Schulz and Peanuts by David Michaelis for being the best read of the year. I looked forward for this book about the iconic strip. I learned English by watching those animated Peanuts episodes and I had that damn Snoopy Snow Cone maker that never worked! Michaelis works in strips to chronicle Schulz's life and the humor still rings true. Charlie Brown as this everyman who asked why can't we be happy or just get it. Considering that both Ronald Regan and the 60's counter culture considered Peanuts an icon speaks volumes about the strip's intelligence and observation.



Most interesting is Schulz himself who comes off as conflicted in the book. Incredibly determined and aggressive, yet he never understood why people liked his work so much. Worldly, but terrified of leaving Minnesota and, later on, California. Haunted by his parents; who never believed cartooning would amount to anything, yet inspired his strips. Introverted, yet he never denied an interview request from any reporter or author. Wary of commercialization, but unable to empathize with the exploited factory workers that made the products. Proto-father to an entire generation of modern cartoonists. He hated Garfield and snubbed Jim Davis, who just wanted Schulz's approval. So did Cathy Guisewite of the Cathy strip. He freaked out at Lynne Johnston of For Better of For Worse when she ran by the idea of killing the Patterson's family dog. (Quick aside: Unlike most comics, For Better of For Worse, is told in real-time. Hence, character's age and most dogs just don't live twenty something years). Schulz threatened to kill of Snoopy, just to eclipse the weight and media hype of what he believed was a dumb move on Johnston's part.

Understandably, some of the Schulz children have taken offense at the later parts of the biography. Particularly Schulz's idea on love and affection. He feel in love quickly, ending his first marriage by dating a woman almost twenty-years his younger. Yet, he felt he could never love anyone back, having been denied that by his own mother. From the book alone, you would imagine he never loved his kids! Instead, he just liked them. It is wonderful that the Schulz children have warm memories of their father and want to protect his legacy. However, Michaelis counters the idea that Schulz was this happy old man filled with love for animals and small children. As his strips represented an American generation, he had to be an equally diverse man. Kowtowing to the master narrative of this American icon would be a disservice.

HAPPY NEW YEAR AND HAPPY READING IN 2008!

Peace!

Happy Holidays!

Amanda and I will be leaving town for the Christmas weekend soon, so I wanted to wish all two of you readers happy holiday season. Merry Christmas! Happy Chanukah! Happy Kwanzaa! Blessed Eid! HOORAY!


However, I do realize that I have blogged more frequently these past two weeks than in two months. Its been fun! Not going to say I have a great blogging groove, but, like Stella, I got it back. If not, for just a few days. Want something to hold you over? Maybe you are a new reader and have yet to skim the archives!? Well here are some of my favorite posts!*

1) The Co-Op of Justice! When gangs, race riots, and Fay Gougakis threaten Ithaca, where will you turn!?

2) Heroes need villains, no?

3) The story that took five different forms. Started with a bunch of kids in a stream and now you get this...

4) We're an entire generation raised by women.

5) Except for several milestones at the newspaper (Being listed as a contributor, that first byline, that first angry letter to the editor, the first front page), as a wanna-be writer, this was my greatest moment. The parking lot of the Family Dollar never heard such a scream of glee!

Hope you enjoy them, and the holidays as well.


Of course, the animals are excited for Christmas. Dante already went to bed!

And all through the house, not a creature was stirring, not a pesky rabbit, not a seven-inch plecostomus, or even a piggy....

MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM FEAR OF THE BLANK PAGE!

PEACE!

*Yes, it's a greatest hits list. I have stooped that low.

Books I Should Have Already Read #3

I'll find you somewhere. Show you how much I care...

Books I Should Have Already Read #3

ROSEMARY'S BABY

By Ira Levin

And, no, I have not seen the 1968 movie. So we can count this as sort of a "Movies I Should Have Already Seen" as well. An early Christmas gift for all of you loyal blog readers!

*** SPOILER ALERT***

Part of me wishes I had lived in the late 60's and through the 70's. I'm very happy in my post-Boomer, Generation Y bracket, but it seemed like a big heyday for horror. You would not tell at first glance, but I actually enjoy a good horror movie. Imagine young Garik wearing a smiley face t-shirt going to see Jaws, Alien, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Carrie, The Exorcist, The Omen, Dawn of the Dead, as they premiered? Without the need for caveats like "Well, you need to understand, that was really scary when it premiered..." Just old-fashioned creepiness and desire to hang out with your mom for comfort. "Nothing is wrong, mom! I just want to hang out on the terrace with you for six hours!" I like for horror movies to get under your skin and not just startle me. I'm looking at you The Ring and The Sixth Sense! I get startled when Carson Rabbit jumps out of his cage too quickly!

Chuck Palahniuk thanked Ira Levin*, author of Rosemary's Baby, in a chapter to his non-ficiton book, Stranger Than Fiction. Portrayed as a letter to Levin, Palahniuk thanks Levin for his work and how it approached national issues. The essay is also a treat to Palahniuk's fans, particularly those with dreams of becoming writers themselves. I am comforted to know that Palahniuk has heroes and writers he admires as much as his legions, myself included, do. Take it away Mr. Palahniuk....

"In Rosemary's Baby...the battle is over a woman's right to control her own body. The right to good health care. And to the right to choose an abortion. She's controlled by her religion, by her husband, by her male best fried, by her male obstetrician."

Maybe it's the thirty years between then and now, but all these 70's horror stories always seem to counter some societal trend. Dawn of the Dead attacks consumerism while The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is supposed to reflect the horrors of the Vietnam war. I hope that in thirty years, the films and books I loved are looked at in such an academic light.

More Mr. Palahniuk....

"You showed women exactly how not to be. What not to do. Do not just sit around your apartment sewing cushions...Take some responsibility. If you get date raped by the Devil, don't think twice about terminating that pregnancy. And, yes, it's silly. The Devil..."

Palahniuk then refers to some of the crazy shit that happens in Rosemary's rape scene. Jacqueline Onassis is there. So is the Pope John Paul the Second. People making love in suits of leather armor. However, Levin hides the message in what is supposed to be entertainment. Its horror. Its supposed to be freaky and weird, not necessarily thought provoking. Messages are nothing new in horror or the plain weird. Plains Indians have the "White Buffalo Woman" story, the Bogey Man scared kids straight way before Sallie Jesse Raphael and most ghost stories have some sort of warning. Be nice to folks, because, if not, they come back and haunt your ass.

As you can tell, others can better explain the messages in Rosemary's Baby. I appreciated how creepy the whole book proved. Having a girl get raped by the devil opens up some enticing imagery. A little beast comes out screaming from the drain! Rosemary opens the bathroom door and sees dead bodies stacked upon each other! Everyone's mother sucks cocks in hell! Instead we get a nice everyday creepiness where the apartment we liked is suddenly terrifying. Everyone understands the idea of a nosy neighbor. Why the hell are they so nosy anyway?! What do they want from me.!? If you think about something long enough, it begins to feel unfamiliar. This is the opposite of deja vu--jamais vu. You can do it at home! Devil-free!

Pick a word. Any word! I am going to choose "orange."

Say the word over and over again. Try to pick at it's etymology. Where did this word come from? When we say it in conversation, the word makes sense. But why does it make sense. Why do the letters 0-r-a-n-g-e describe anything? It feels weird, no? And the unfamiliar can be fascinating or terrifying, if not both. There lies the appeal of Rosemary's Baby and Levin's writing.

The final moments left me a bit unsettled. Rosemary falling in love with her little devil baby. Oh, you're claws aren't so bad! Your yellow with black eyes aren't so bad! I am going to put you in your little black carriage and push you around! WEE! Acolytes scream out "All hail Andrew!" It's a kitschy baby shower...FROM HELL! Where the Adams Family and Munsters were funny, Rosemary is perverse. Levin also has some sick touches here and there. Not to spoil all the fun, but I wanted to share my favorite.

After giving birth, Rosemary believes that her baby is dead. The cult took it away and trapped her in bed. She still produced breast milk which she need to drain by pressing a crude pump (really just a cup with some tubing) against her breasts. She hands them off to cult members in scenes like this...

"And more often than not, the pump and cup were brought to her a few minutes after the cring began; and the crying stopped a few minutes after her milk was taken away.

'What do you do with it' she asked Laura-Louise one morning, giving her back the pump and the cup and six ounces of milk.

'Why throw it away, of course, Laura-Louise said, and went out."

Cold!

Laura-Loiuse then goes on to use Rosemary's breast milk cup to dump a dirty spoon.

COLDER!

Thank you, Mr. Levin

Peace!

*Ira Levin recently passed away and in reading his obituaries I learned that he only wrote seven novels and about nine plays. Most have become stage or screen icons like Rosemary's Baby, The Stepford Wives, and The Boys from Brazil. Amazing, but wish he could have written more for us later comers.

Here Comes Santa Claus...

At risk of further distancing myself from the Ithaca intelligista...I have to say that I always took critiques of the Bush junta creating a modern theocracy lightly. I understand the impact religious voters had on the 2004 election, but claims of theocracy seemed a bit too heavy-handed, much in the same vein as when Republicans call Democrats "Marxists." Getting a bit overboard, aren't we boys?

Also, after reading God's Politics by Jim Wallis, I realized that when it comes to religion and politics, both sides need to give up some ground. However, I just learned about this recent House Resolution.

DIOS MIO! A DONDE SE FUE LA CONSTITUCION DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS!?

Such are the levels of crazy in House Resolution 847! It makes me break out into Spanish like some Saturday morning cartoon character. Porque Miguel Arcuri!? POR QUE!?

I understand bits of the language in the resolution.

"(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;
Yes. Quite true.

(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

Not a bad thing. Hang on me brother...

(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

Yes, true again. The Crusades gave us algebra, stolen from the Muslims, but algebra none the less! Mendel was a Franciscan monk! Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel looks great!

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

True. Religious fervor whipped up many an explorer and colonist to the Americas. Some more than others...

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

I agree, no one should be persecuted for their beliefs. It's kind of a duh idea.

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

See 5

All wonderful points, but the resolution still strikes me as kind of creepy. Imagine the precedent set by a resolution that so mingles religion and government. It's basically a big endorsement!

Christianity: USA APPROVED!

I realize the bill, introduced by Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) is a lot of fluff designed to appease those on the religious right that continue to say us Godless savages wage a war against Christmas. Such is the genius of the religious right. Try proving a negative? Even without the "God did it!" trump card, the religious right can continue to perpetuate the assertion that Christmas is dying. Every "Happy Holidays!" is interpreted as an attack against Jesus, instead of the jovial sentiment actually intended. Every mention of Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Eid, or the winter solstice constitutes blasphemy brought on by politically correct ninnies. Never mind someone might actually want to learn about other cultures.

The resolution mentions that there are "225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population," With such high numbers, how can there be a war on Christmas?

I don't think there is going to be very much fallout from the resolution. While skirting the boundaries of our constitutional republic and emboldening the supposed battle over Christmas, it doesn't destroy the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It's one thing to say "Gee, isn't Christmas great!" and another to say "It's Jesus or Canada, buddy!" That will take many more microphone cuts on the O'Reilly Factor!

Actually, the resolution is quite laughable when you consider Congress passed a bill saying that Christmas was indeed important to Christians. Next up, water is wet and 2 + 2 = 4!

Peace!

Blog Watch

For how much Ithacans rave about their love for the community and open debate, I am amazed about the lack of good local blogs focused on Ithaca. Sure we have Steve Burke's Ithaca Blog and Ez's Ithaca Sucks, but why hasn't the Ithaca intelligista caught up with the neighboring communities. Shane Seger left Ithaca recently and who knows what will happen to Happily Stuck in Ithaca. Well, Shane does. But who else knows!? Dryden wields their own private blogging army. Ulysses and Trumansburg are lucky to have Jonathan Cook, especially now that there seems to be additional posts from other contributors on the blog.

Surely, there are other wonderful Ithaca blogs out there? I might be leaving soon and I want to get some sort of final sense about what Ithaca is and what happened these past six years. I understand that Ithaca enjoys the most coverage from the Ithaca Journal and near exclusive coverage from the Ithaca Times. It has the Craigslist rants and raves section and the Story Chat community. However, why hasn't the "enlightened city" taken advantage of the new revolution in user-generated media? Citizen journalism, anyone?

On the Ithaca Craigslist, one reader posted a comment about how Ithaca's progressivism is not as progressive as some would like. He or she identified streaks of iconoclasm and regression in a movement designed to take us forward. Suspicious of modern technology (Ever been yelled at Greenstar for your cell phone ringing?), outright rejection of mainstream culture (You actually saw something that wasn't at Fall Creek!? ARE YOU OK?) and a battery of "progressive" litmus tests (Eat meat? Bad! Watch TV? Oh, so bad! Don't ride your bike? The worst!) Even as a proud liberal, the whole Ithaca political lefty scene turns me off. In a city, supposedly so accepting and open-minded, I have to constantly justify my interest in progressive politics. This is the subject of a whole other post to come later in the winter season.

In the Ithaca zeitegeist, people use the word "silent majority" often. However, exactly what that silent majority means changes from poster to poster and blogger to blogger. Is it a silent majority of the more right-leaning demographics that surround Ithaca? Is it a silent majority of moderates or un-extreme liberals trying to squeeze in change between discussions about impeachment? Or does it just not exist at all? If there are ways to counter the Ithaca Sound Machine then blogs are the way to go. Anyone have some suggestions for good Ithaca blogs? I would love to see some and be proven wrong.

Peace!

Singer at IC

Last week, Amanda and I went to see Peter Singer speak at IC. Singer is most famously known for his book Animal Liberation which still acts a major touchstone for the animal rights movement. If you have ever taken an Introduction to Ethics course sometime in the past three decades then you have probably read something by him. Most likely the essay, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, which charges everyone living in financial security to do everything they can to help those who lack the stability. I.E., if you can donate half our your paycheck to UNICEF and not endanger your own life, then you are morally responsible to do such. Feel free to discuss, class.

He introduced the term "speciesism," which meant discrimintating against something because it was another species. If it was OK kick the dog because it's just a dog then that is speciesism. He also has block-rocking* views about abortion and euthanasia. The right to lifers do not like him and neither do several advocacy groups for senior citizens and the mentally/physically disabled.

His talk focused on food and our ethical connections to food. While it was great to actually see Pete Singer in person (He really does exist, outside of the textbook that the bookstore won't freaking take back!), we both left the talk dissapointed. We both wanted to hear something new, but Singer focused his talk on a public presentation about how our food is produced and the conditions of factory farming. Coming out of the environmental studies program and living in Ithaca for six years, most of what he said was old hat.

There were little bits of gold during the talk. I always imagined Singer as a very crunchy-professor type who would fit in as well at Greenstar Cooperative Market as Princeton University. However, we both listened to a practical, intelligent man who used logic and reason to argue his points. Even if you don't agree with Singer, his stlye proved refreshing amongst all the rhetoric we hear. He focused almost entirely on farm animals saying that dogs and cats have it much easier then the animals we do interact with the most--livestock.

Most appreciated was his stance on local foods. Actually, stance is a bad word for what Singer said. More of a cavaet on local foods. For the most part, local foods are better for the welfare of the environment, the people on the farm, and the animals. Shipping food from only a hundred miles away uses less fossil fuels than something from 1,500 miles away. Local farms tend to be smaller operations that cannot use their size to intimadate workers. Neither can they afford to lose profits and capital by scamming clients. Finally, local farms tends to steward the land, instead of exploit it, because they cannot just pikc up and move to new pastures.

Still, these are all generalities. Local doesn't necessarily mean better, just that it is local. Technically, I could get local tomatoes in December if I went to a hothouse up a Cornell. Is the energy use there any worse then the energy expended to ship a non hot house tomato flown up from Florida? Singer also advised that people need to educate themselves about local farms and their practics. Yes, local famrs and businesses are much likelier to be caring and kind, but it is not a guarantee. The beauty of local structures is that you can go see them for yourself! He concluded by saying that if you wanted to eat local then you had to combine that with seasonal, which was an additional commitment. He also added cavaeat to the "organic" label, pointing out that you can have 100% organic beef and milk from equally horrible factory farming conditions.

I appreciated Singer's characterization of vegetarianism and veganism. When asked by an audience member if he was vegan he answered yes, but added that he considered such diets more of an ethical stance then something about personal piety. It is not that eating meat, cheese, and eggs is bad. Instead the issue rests in the fact that most of the meat and dairy produced in this country comes from factory famrs that do not reflect the true cost of that product at the butcher's block.

Singer ended the talk by saying "I have given you a lot of information, but not many answers." I suspect he wanted most of the talk to center around the Q & A discussion. Ethicists prove their muster when faced with questions. If not you are just an empty essayist or, worse yet, a blogger**! Organizers only allowed for a few questions because of time constraints. I remember planning events at IC with my cohorts in the environmental society and trying to balance the wrap-up time. It's difficult considering that everyone does need to get back to their lives (Earth Week always fell on the week right before the last day of class. Mothafucker.) and still want that extra knowledge. A lot of people stuck around for the Q & A and considering that everyone I spoke to aftwerwards was dissapointed by the talk, I feel I am not alone in my thoughts.

As a quick aside, Amanda and I have begun to make official airs of leaving Ithaca for good come late spring/early summer. Nothing concrete as of now. We are not giving away our cache of trash tags and Ithaca Hours just yet! But who knows. Expect some big blog posts about that later, but I will miss the speakers that come through the town. For how much heat the colleges get (and deserve!), you could have seen the Dalai Lama, John Ashcroft, and Pete Singer all withing the same two month stretch.

Peace!

* Chemical Brothers can go with anything. Even ethics! I purposefully did not summarize Singer's views because both he, and the introduction at the talk, mentioned that his long essays and books are often warped and condensed to scintillationg talking points. Reading my one setence about speciesims does not do any service to Singer or his critics. Feel free to read for yourself on-line.

** I kid! I kid! Blogging, citizen journalism, and user generated media is the wave of the future. But we can still have fun, no?

Movies I Should Have Already Seen Vol. 3, #7

If dealing with this were school, I'd had a Harvard degree....

Movies I Should Have Already Seen Volume 3, Issue 7

Forrest Gump

This is a hard one to see 14 some years after it's initial release. Not because the movie is unwatchable or bad. Not at all. However, after watching umpteen bench sketches and listening to Weird All Yankovic's Gump (Bad Hair Day was the first ever album I bought) all of the magic of Forrest' s accidental philosophy does not hit me too hard.

So, yes, except for the very end and the whole wrap up with Jenny, all those iconic moments were already with me. The braces falling off, the gunfight in Vietnam, the ping pong, etc. However, it as still wonderful to see them all put together. Visually, the movie struck me with coffee table book landscapes and the CGI seamlesness. While dated, the special effects still hold strong. I didn't know that Gary Sinise's legs were amputated on via computer. It looked amazing and I just thought they subbed in a double amputee. Except for that one clip where Forrest meets John Lennon, everything looked great.

And let's diverge for a moment about Gary Sinise and his Lieutenant Dan character. I loved Lieutenant Dan and the way that Forrest lead his life from anger (I had a destiny!) to happiness as co-owner of the shrimp company. Lieutenant Dan is pimp. If anyone deserves to still be called Lieutenant whatever after the war it is lieutenant Dan. The man stood up to a whole hurricane! And he had no legs! NO LEGS! And he hadn't buttoned up his shirt, which must have made it very chilly. We needed Lieutenant Dan during Katrina! "Your not going to break these levees dammit! Where's God now, huh!?" Also, its FUNNY! Not because Tom Hanks plays someone with an IQ of 75. We are beyond crude retard jokes here at the blog and so was the movie. It's just damn funny, filled with pointed references and visual jests. Amanda taught me the wonder of "Lieutenant Dan! Ice Cream!"

It's a damn sweet movie, but I found it off that Forrest Gump, a movie that crafted many moments with the people in power during the past 40 year, didn't really take a stance. Not that such plot points are required, but the movie made a concerted effort to frame Forrest's adventures in the tumult of the 60's, 70's and 80s. Like a Greek chorus, the radio, TV, or Forrest's asides himself tell us why the world is a crazy place. Did Forrest, the character and the movie, agree with the counter-culture? Or should we all have stayed home? Yes, Forrest is a nice guy, but what happens when you stick that nice guy at the Watergate hotel or at a Black Panthers rally? Where does that nice guy fit in?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for letting books and movies exist just for the sake of story and pleasure. Trust me, Amanda and I live in Ithaca where we have to justify why we saw the latest Hollywood movie and not whatever was playing at the local art house cinema. However, Forrest Gump garnered so much praise and so many Oscars (6) that I wanted it to say something besides "Stupid is as stupid does." I must mention that the movie does touch upon this. In a scene where Forrest is running across the county, a gaggle of reporters ask him why is he doing this? Is it for the environment? Women's rights? World peace? Forrest just says because he wanted to run. And there are other little nuggets of reflection. Maybe we can all find redemption in just being ourselves and staying home? Forrest just did everything people told him to do, never injecting his own thought, and he became wildly successful. Conversely, Jenny rebelled against her life and ended up a druggie. Is ignorance bliss? Should we just ignore all that about Vietnam, Watergate, AIDS, Iran-Contra, MLK, JFK, RFK, Malcolm X, civil rights, Roe V. Wade, the environment, Berkley, etc, for our own good? While anyone can enjoy this film, it was made for Baby Boomers. Isn't everything that Forrest what you ask Baby Boomers? Where the hell were you during Vietnam, dad?! Hell, I even asked my parents that when I was young and we lived in quasi-isolated PR. Imagine if I ever had a kid and he or she asked me, 'Hey, dad. What were you doing during the 2000 Florida re-count, 9/11, or the 2003 Iraq invasion?" And all I gave them was this big smile and a "Meh." That kid woulf probably be pissed.

Maybe the movie as trying to tell us something, but really just wanted us to focus on the heartwarming aspect of Forrest's life. I can give it that, in fact, I feel too many people today do not realize that you can just have fun at the movies whether it be though explosions or a life-story. I enjoyed all the little references sprinkled throughout the movie, which helped merge Forrest's life with the times. However, part of me still wants to know how those two work.

Peace!

Hey Ace!

I should be working, but here is one quick post.

While I still think of myself as partially employed, I am slowly realizing that the paper takes up a good portion of my days off. Sitting in on various meetings eats up most of that time as does the travel time between locations. I don't mind this. I want to write and prefer a lifetime of freelance writing over a day-job.

Even with the effort I put into the paper, I still sometimes feel like I am writing in a vacuum. Amanda is immensely supportive and I love her for that, but we are still a young paper. Like a new business, we continue to introduce ourselves to the audience. That gets better every day and today was a singular day, at least for me.

I went to get a quick picture for a story. It was a head shot of a local official and I had to wait in the lobby of the building while the clerk staff let the official about me. I introduced myself with my Christian name (Long story why I use that tongue twister for bylines) and what paper I was from.

Upon hearing that I worked for a newspaper three other staffers immediately rolled their eyes and one groaned, "Jeez, what's a reporter doing here?"

Contrary to any ill will they wished on pesky old me, I FELT GREAT! I do not think myself as a reporter. And not because of some high-minded semantics. Instead, reporter feels too professional a title for me. Reporters don't have day jobs because the news is their day job. I am proud of what I write, but I know they are not the best pieces. Reporter is a very Romantic term for me and because I am not the best, I don't like to use the name of the best. Forget calling myself a "journalist." Might as well call myself the Pope. Instead, I remain comfortable as a contributor, growing until the one day I feel solid enough to call myself a reporters or even a journalist.

However, how damn cool is it to know that someone felt annoyed, maybe even worried, that I might put their actions to paper! I brought up all these images of Richard Nixon sitting in the Oval Office screaming, "Damn you Woodward and Bernstein!"

I played dumb after hearing the comment. I felt good about myself and is that so much to ask from a job and hobby?!

Consequently, paper-pushers, I was doing my job. If you are going to work for a municipality then be ready for any one to come through that door and corner you with a question. Maybe even the odd journalist, reporter, contributor, fact checker, ranter, video blogger, or activist. If you don't like it, then go to the private sector. Like all the other elected officials and senior staffers on my beat (i.e. your bosses), the person I came to visit was happy to answer my questions!

Peace!

*Image pulled from the George A. Smathers Libraries at the University of Florida.

Dropped Books

In the past year or so, I have become a hard-liner when it comes to book. I employ a strategy called the "100 Page Rule." I read each and every book I get for the first 100 pages and if it doesn't entice me by then, it gets the drop.

I know it sounds mean, but I want to tap into the things that I love and that challenge me. No need for dead weight.

It is with mixed emotions that I have to drop my latest read, Jimmy Carter's The Hornet's Nest.

Readers of the blog will know that I very much like President Carter. Considering his history as the 39th president, you have to mention that when talking about this book.

Carter has about a dozen plus books to his name, focusing on subjects from the presidency to friendly monsters. I haven't read any of his other pieces, but considering that they were produced throughout his lifetime, I know he is doing something right when it comes to writing.

The Hornet's Nest is an ambitious book about the Revolutionary War in the American South. It does a great job at showing what life was like back then and in challenging the ideas of the American Master Narrative. I was excited to read it, and disappointed to have to drop it.

My biggest hangup? If the book were presented as a non-fiction account than I would be fine with it. Carter did an amazing amount of research, learning how Colonials made shoes and bought land. The minutiae in the book create a wonderful sense of place especially as the characters move from Philadelphia and into the Georgia. However, it is supposed to be a novel. As one reviewer on Amazon said, "It isn't a page turner."

With very little dialogue, the book feels handed to the reader. The sheer amount of detail would serve a historical textbook well, but as a novel it takes away from the central action. When the book does feature dialogue, it sounds like something pulled from an 8th grade oral presentation on the Revolutionary War...."Most colonial governments met the official requests from London for financial contributions, which rarely even covered the expenses of the colonies. But, in fact, a lot of merchants, including my own company, continued to trade freely with the French even during the conflict." That quote comes early in the book from a character named Mr. Know, who serves as a sort of Greek chorus for the protagonists. He is referring to the French-Indian War and Colonial involvement in the conflict. Why should our protagonist join the rebels? Insert Know. Oh, know we see!

I dropped the book around page 150. Maybe it was building towards something much bigger. Entire chapters were often designated to introduce a new character who could have played a larger role in the later plot. A friend of mine, who read the book, said this was the kind of book you wanted when stuck in an airport. I can see his point. With the amount of details and the sweep of this book, you want to give it a good chunk of time.

I was excited to read the book. Who had ever heard of any standard US history course mentioning anything about the Revolutionary War outside of New England? A great idea and some good words to go with it, but the attempt to fictionalize parts of this unknown history falls flat.

I still think you are one of the coolest, President Carter! I look forward to reading your other books in the new year! Peace!