Monday, April 5, 2010

oh, you're divine.

arrite kids, this one's about music, not books - but it's still about stories, so never you fear. i need to start this post with something comforting and (hopefully) familiar that relates almost immediately to the rest of this bizniz (for once!): 


  When I was just a little girl
  I asked my mother, what will I be
  Will I be
pretty, will I be rich
  Here's what she said to me.

  Que Sera, Sera,
  Whatever will be, will be
  The future's not ours to see
  Que Sera, Sera
  What will be, will be.



if you haven't heard of wax tailor, i suggest you start hearing. the video below is almost all of the music video to their super awesome song, Que Sera (sound familiar?). 





the whole song is available on their website, and also here. hopefully you watched/listened to that, and noticed the abundance of Metropolis footage. i'll get into that sort of .. strategically. first of all, sound clips! throwing a bajillion sound clips into a super rad song is what wax tailor is all about (among others) - the artist is actually just a french dude who totally wins. but the compilation of various clips has a great (and intentional) effect in this song. for instance:


  "i need everyone to understand"
  "i don't understand"
  "i don't understand"
  "there are a lot of things we don't understand either"
  "we need answers from you"
  "what did you expect to find?"
  "what is gunna be our future?"
  "it's your responsibility to do something about it!"


et cetera. which brings me to my first point (thank god!). "que sera" implies we have no control over our future! what happened to responsibility?! it can be very comforting to think that FATE will run its course and we'll just float along que sera-ing though this world, but seriously? not so much. 


also, the juxtaposition of soundclips demanding understanding and getting none show the awesome dialectic between those with control and those without it, and the lack of communication, the lack of understanding. this can even be applied to the mother and child in the original doris day tune: child asks mom, mom says 'no worries, we have no control over our future.' if i were that kid, i might be comforted; but when i got a little older, i might be a little pissed off


this, of course, applies at a much higher level, to society/government at large (oh no, she's getting all 1984 again). hence, Metropolis. like everything i mention, if you haven't seen this classic, please do. the point is similar to those mentioned in the aforementioned post re: Feed/1984; that we're becoming drones, susceptible to ever-increasing levels of brainwashing and control through fear and desperate times and overpopulation and blah blah blah. i really do love these apocalyptic theories. it's almost as though, as each generation sort of fails at building on the one that came before, we're giving up our rights to everything out of laziness and the idea that whatever will be, will be. we are not responsible for our future or The Future, or any of it. someone else will handle that.


anywho. there's so much to dissect here that i'm just going to let it sink in and probably engage these ideas at a later date. if you like wax tailor, and what technology has done/is doing to music (or are at all interested by it), i'd like to make one more suggestion... 


seattle's emp (experience music project) is hosting a super stinking awesome conference next week about technology and music, called pop machine. it's FREE, and goes from April 15th through the 18th (check out the agenda by clicking on the dates in the upper right), which includes some very cool sounding lectures, panels, workshops, music, and i definitely saw mention of a cash bar. i will be there for what i can be there for, and will lament what i miss. did i mention it's free? 

Saturday, April 3, 2010

my name depends on you


another time, i will compare in watermelon sugar to if on a winter's night a traveler, but not today. today i dive into the ridiculousness of richard brautigan's beat fiction "novel," in watermelon sugar, without clouding or confusing (further) by addressing out the similarities on an theoretical level to italo calvino's play on the reader's role in the act of reading. (woah, that was a lot of prepositional phrases. sorry, won't happen again.)


this book is called in watermelon sugar the deeds were done and done again as my life is done in watermelon sugar. is it just me, or could you totally go for a tall glass of kool-aid right about now? anywho. i love this book. it's another that will only take an hour or two to read, you time-starved/short-attention-spanned people. but i must warn you, it's certainly not for everyone. i can't tell you much about the plot due to my no spoilers policy, but here's what the publishers apparently thought it was about (from the back cover): 
   in watermelon sugar
   is a story
   of love and betrayal
   that takes place in
   an extraordinary environment 
   where the sun
   shines a different
   color every day.

huh? exactly. but let me just say that this book plays with your mind the way phantom tollbooth teased you when you were little. everything is made out of something called watermelon sugar. or trout. the characters live on a sort of commune. i guess. there's a love story, but it's not easily recognizable as such. there are bad guys, but really just in the way that the people who choose to live underground in demolition man are 'bad.' 

here's a fun tidbit from what could be considered chapter 3, called My Name:
I guess you are kind of curious as to who I am, but I am one of those who do not have a regular name. My name depends on you. Just call me whatever is in your mind.
If you are thinking about something that happened a long time ago: Somebody asked you a question and you did not know the answer.
That is my name.
Perhaps it was raining very hard.
That is my name. 
awesome! i'm going to start introducing myself like that. there really is story and plenty of depth in this book; it's not just crazysauce to contemplate. that just makes it delicious. also, the tigers are good at math.


ok, last point, then i'll leave it up to you to read it and form your own opinions. many find this book frustrating because it's not clear what is "real." for instance, if you see something happen, dream the same thing, hear about it from someone else, what actually happened? does it matter? does it only matter what you believe happened? the concept of death has a great time in this story too. i'll leave it at that. 


if you've read it, or once the ambiguous 'you' have read it, i invite you to take a more academic look by trudging though the paper i wrote about reading between the lines of this fantabulous novel.


Thursday, April 1, 2010

what to read if you only have an hour or two and want to devour a meaningful book

"we went to the moon to have fun, but the moon turned out to completely suck."
don't you love it when you're hooked on the first sentence? Feed, by M.T. Anderson, is a postmodern young adult novel. don't you dare give up on it right now because i said it's young adult. c'mon. we're all young adults. if i haven't recommended this book to you personally yet, it's probably because i don't know you or haven't talked to you in the last handful of years.

reasons i recommend this book to everyone include:

  • it really does only take an hour or two to read but it's not fluff
  • it's hilarious AND relatable (because it's terrifyingly telling and accurate about where our society is headed)
  • it addresses some very important questions about our society/culture
  • the story could only be called formulaic by a stretch of the old boy-meets-girl, but it's a great story
  • anyone between the ages of .. oh.. cognizant enough to use a computer to curmudgeon-y will find something to love about it (or hate, which by translation in the literature world means the book got to you enough to make you feel strongly, and therefore, the book still wins.)

remember the first time you read 1984? or the first time you saw Vanilla Sky? or when you figured out who Keyser Soze was? that's how this book makes you feel. the best way to describe it, i suppose, is that it's 1984 for today's youth. but see, now i sound like a tool. so allow me to elaborate (without spoilers).

the main characters are teenagers in the not-too-unbelievably-distant future. the narrator is a teenager. i'm going to let that sink in for a moment as you think about how current teenagers talk. or think. *shudder.* this doesn't make the novel unbearable, as one might assume, however. it makes it funny. i swear. please refer back to the first sentence. also, it's interspersed with the actual advertisement, song lyrics, etc. with which the teens are being bombarded. it's scary how similar these are to current pop culture. because of the ridiculousness.

these teens live in a future (second generation or so) where, at birth, "everyone" (the way we say 'everyone' has a cell phone) is implanted with a feed. think internet that could fit on the head of a pin, stuck in yer brain, so you can access all the stuff you google and wikipedia just by thinking it. also, you can watch tv. also, you are bombarded with advertisements all the time, in your brain. there is no need for school anymore because anything you need to know you can just look up. in your feed. in your brain. but even further, there's really no reason to learn anything we would consider academic because society is based primarily on consumerism. the kids go to school, sure, but it's to learn what to wear, what to buy, how to decorate their bedroom. school is a corporation. the clouds themselves are trademarked. getting the idea?

another important point: you are profiled, categorized, based on what you buy. what you consider buying. the types of things you look up in your feed. starting to sound familiar? i love google, but sometimes those targeted ads creep me out a little. even further, there are seven categories. doesn't that make you feel special? you are one of seven types of highly predictable consumers.

ok. that's all i'm going to say about the book, besides READ IT. now i'm going to venture into a couple of the reasons it struck me so personally (i.e., if all you wanted was the book review, you may go now). now to address two points:

  1. in a world where everyone has all the most up to date information, knowledge, pop culture, etc. accessible by instant thought, things change SUPER FAST.
  2. consider the gap between where we currently are and the future this premise predicts. we have netbooks. we have bluetooths (blueteeth?). we have hearing aids, prosthetic limbs, artificial organs, and something called 4G! if "everyone" jumped off a bridge, would you?


1. superfast:
once upon a time, i was having a conversation with my dad (in person) and having a text conversation at the same time (on my fancypants flip phone). my dad was shocked. he said, astonished, "it's like.. you've... partitioned your brain!" oooo, i can text and talk at the same time! wait, that's actually pretty crazy. also, my dad knows what it means to partition (he really meant it like a hard drive partition!). but seriously, what?

i have applied the following thesis to literature, film/theater, music, business, conversation, relationships, adult learning, and child rearing. and it's not that profound. we are goin fast. we are goin faster than we went 10 years ago, way faster than 20 years ago, and stinkin crazy faster than ever before then. by fast i mean our attention spans are shorter because more information is available FASTER. in film, if the camera stays on one shot without moving for more than something like 3 seconds, the modern viewer is bored or uncomfortable. can you imagine waiting on a dial-up connection now? or waiting for a letter from your significant other (written by hand and delivered on horseback) versus the constant texting and chatting of today? seriously, 5 years of courtship in days of yore = maybe a week or two of tech-assisted get-to-know-you conversation now.

so. here comes a future so devoid of waiting, so fast, that in a group of friends - mid-conversation - all the female-types rush to the bathroom and return with a different hairstyle. because that's the newest trend and they're that up to date because they have all the latest pop culture (tv, music, commercials!) playing constantly in their brains. is this where we're headed?

i challenge you to stop everything and see how long that lasts. or, for that matter, do only one thing for more than 10 minutes. don't check your phone, don't go to the bathroom, don't check facebook, don't write yourself a little note, don't turn on the tv, don't pet the cat. IMPOSSIBLE, ISN'T IT?! because in our fast-paced society, we're trained to do so many things at once, and take in so much information that we can't sit still. in brain or body.

2. all the cool kids are doing it:
we're already at a place where it's mandatory to have a laptop for college. where every job you might want requires at least a basic knowledge of technology. what if, to compete in society, to get an education, to get a job, you actually had to implant something in your brain? what if you could get that bluetooth permanently implanted behind your ear? what if you everyone had one? what if you had to make the choice that, to give your CHILD a fighting change in society, you needed to implant some form of technology in them at birth? right up there with counting fingers and toes, standard procedure. we already put tracking chips in our pets. you have poor eyesight; you get glasses; you get contacts; you get laser eye surgery... you get electronic eyeballs?

i'm not saying the advance of technology is a bad thing. quality of life! longevity! awesome! i'm saying, what if something goes wrong? what if continue on this road? will we all end up superhuman? the antithesis of the ubermensch? will we end up like the society in wall-e? fat, lazy, bored, and useless, while our planet and everything of value about human society dies?

wee!! i hope you're not too depressed. just some stuff to munch on.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

NOT snobbery

i recently had a great conversation with a fellow english major who expressed a great point about our "useless" degrees. he said that while it's nice that many of our peers graduated with more technical or pertinent education and landed high paying jobs right out of college, he really loves the social relevance of an english degree.

seriously. we know so much random crap! crap that probably a large percentage (i don't do math or statistics, i'm an english major) of NON-liberal arts majors would have no reason ever to learn. and this stuff pops up all over the place. for instance: one of my new favorite adult cartoons, archer, on fx. if you haven't seen it, go get yourself a hulu account and watch all of the first season right stinking now, it's freaking hilarious, you won't regret it.

creepy-bad-accent mob dude asking super-suave-spy archer (under cover as sailorman dude who runs the chocolate fountain on the yacht) to bring lots of chocolate to mob dude's rendezvous with sexy-counterpart-girl-spy (also undercover). the exchange goes thusly:

mob guy: "not as much as i love chocolate. and you! bring plenty of it!"
archer: "i would prefer not to..?" 

*flamboyant storm troopers cock their firearms* 
archer continues: "... bartleby the scrivener? anybody? not a big melville crowd here, huh?"

as if the show's vulgarity and super speedy wit and non-sequitur humor weren't enough to make me fall in love, they throw in a PERFECT literary reference. i laughed so STINKING hard. the point is, i felt a little sad that a lot of viewers perhaps did not get the reference. and so, i shall share, so next time you're in a sticky situation, you can say 'i would prefer not to' and feel super cool and smirk because you totally get it, man, you totally know some knowledge.

bartleby is a short story by herman melville (you know, this guy). i'm glossing over the obvious humor that archer quotes melville, who is most famous for moby dick, in the setting of a stinking BOAT in the stinking OCEAN. standing next to a dude the size of a whale.. i won't spoil the episode. anyway.

bartleby is a scrivener (back before computers, people had to hire people to make handwritten copies of things they wrote once already!), or law-copyist, on wall street in 18somethingsomething (story was published in the 1850s). benevolent dude hires bartleby to .. scrive. but eventually bartleby gets a bit complacent and starts responding to all his coworkers' requests with 'i would prefer not' or 'i would prefer not to.' even when confronted with 'you will not?' he gives the same response that he would just prefer not, but that he's not picky. slacker!

***SPOILER ALERT***
the reference is as exciting as it's going to get (except for the stretch i make a little later that the comment on "the absurd" relates to how stinking absurd archer, the show, is...), but as long as i'm enlightening you (oh, THERE'S the stereotypical snobbery), i might as well delve into something a little deeper than cartoons. i am totally anti-spoiler, but the story is really short and you should read it if you haven't, but i know you won't anyway so here's the thing...
he keeps preferring not to do any and everything, including leave the building upon being fired, and eat when he's finally thrown in prison, and... he eventually dies. poor narrator bossman.. bartleby was the only one who was good at his job and didn't complain about personal stuff!

dude. got. depressed. so depressed, in fact, that he finally had no motivation left at all to even stay alive. and his super nice boss tried so hard to understand him and offer help and try to find what would make him happy!

hey depressopants, that's pretty irrational.. oh wait, what do i love? existentialism? postmodern problems? THE ABSURD?!
absurdism - The belief that nothing can explain or rationalize human existence. 
thank you, existential primer, you haven't failed me yet. the final exclamation in the story is the poor narrator (nice boss guy) lamenting his weirdo friend's demise: "Ah Bartleby! Ah humanity!" read: dammit, bartleby, there is no REASON in your behavior! nor in any of humanity's behavior, for that matter! dude doesn't get it. because there is no explanation.

to come full circle... if you have, by now, ventured to watch at least a snippet of archer, you will understand how ridiculous and crazy the show is, thus making the reference to bartleby's irrationality and lack of preference (i would prefer not to, but i'm not particular, i.e., i have no preference except NOT) doubly amusing to those of us snobs who actually got the reference. and now you're one too. so watch it with your friends, and laugh really heartily at that line, then pause if they don't laugh, then show them this blog entry. they won't be your friends anymore, but you'll feel pretty cool, won't you?

good day, sir.

Monday, March 29, 2010

eternal return and responsibility

i love those ah-ha moments when i'm reading fiction and i can see some of my favorite philosophers' influence in the 'big thoughts' the characters face. i had a moment yesterday during my reading that made me revisit nietzsche - effectively distracting me for the rest of the day, and most of this morning.

nietzsche's concept of the eternal return is, to me, one of the most profound and terrifying ideas in philosophy. i think it's because, though nietzsche would not consider himself an existentialist, it illustrates very well the notion of taking responsibility for one's self, actions, and life. consider:

What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you in your loneliest loneliness and say to you: ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence-even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!‘”
- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science

what if. what if you had to live this exact same life over and over again? nothing new, no second chances, all the same choices, opportunities, mistakes, heartbreaks, and revelations. why is this so terrifying? because we think our major limitation is time? if i had all the time in the world, would i DO LIFE differently?

this concept puts so much responsibility on the individual (because there is no fate, and, of course, god is dead) to take control - to be the driving force, the sole influence in one's life. this is my favorite (yet still most terrifying) concept in existential philosophy. it takes a lot of pondering to understand what responsibility really means in this sense.

further, it is not just an idea put forth by nietzsche. he puts the 'blame' on some demon, who 'steals' after you in your 'loneliest loneliness.' he does not directly take responsibility for this idea. he places it on a demon - a malevolent force. and it must come to you when you are at your weakest (in nietzsche's eyes): your loneliest loneliness. is it the confrontation of individual alone-ness, of nothingness, the oh-so-existential problem of confronting and understanding the possibility of your own non-existence?

(oh dear, we've gotten into heideggarian territory. it was bound to happen.)

to nietzsche, then, the eternal return is more terrifying than nothingness. in your night of solitude and loneliness, confronting nothingness and non-existence versus, perhaps, dasein, this demon - a being itself - gives you something even heavier to ponder: that your every choice and every action carries infinite weight. even if we don't have to live this life over and over for eternity, isn't it the same that we only get one shot? we do have to live with our choices 'eternally' since all we have is all we have.

Friday, March 26, 2010

enchanting

just re-started reading salman rushie's the enchantress of florence. (i got about 50 pages in a few months ago and managed to neglect the act of reading for some time due to .. life.)

i must say, it only takes about a sentence for this book to creep back under my skin and make me grin. the mind grapes start juicing and i get all kinds of comfy; sinking in for the long haul. even if the story were garbage (which it isn't), the prose is beautiful. the philosophical musings interspersed so seamlessly with character and setting development that you forget you're reading a story.

don't worry, no spoilers here, but i must set up the following AWESOME quote by saying that the emperor, despite his palace full of concubines, has imagined himself up a wife. she's 'imaginary.' and the this quote is spoken by her speaking to him:

when a boy dreams up a woman he gives her big breasts and a small brain. when a king imagines a wife he dreams of me.

that quote hit me like a hammer. i immediately reached for my pen. probably because it speaks to the boring desirability of a well-endowed woman who longs for nothing but to please a man, versus the unattainability of a strong, questioning, intellectual woman.

another, you ask? ok. this one is dear to my heart for obvious reasons:

witchcraft requires no potions, familiar spirits, or magic words. language upon a silvered tongue affords enchantment enough.

chew on that.