July to December: books

Welcome to the sequel to a post back in June regarding the books I had read up to the halfway point in the year. Back in June I had cited a statistic from the National Endowment for the Arts report titled "Reading at Risk" (2002) that said 58% of the US adult population never reads another book after high school. The Guardian actually reported on an Associated Press poll back in August of this year that showed that one in four Americans read no books in the past year and most people typically said that they read four books. http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2153877,00.html


So once again, here is my somewhat self-indulgent compilation of the books I have read in the past six months...doing my part to up our national average...


1. The Trial - Franz Kafka
2. Revolutionary Road - Richard Yates
3. Hunger - Knut Hamsun
4. the Gospel Singer - Harry Crews
5. the Clown - Heinrich Boll
6. Berlin Stories - Christopher Isherwood
7. Know What I Mean? - Michael Eric Dyson
8. No Country For Old Men - Cormac McCarthy
9. Gargoyles - Thomas Bernhard
10. Victoria - Knut Hamsun
11. Time Traveler's Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
12. Three Novels by Beckett: Molloy, Malone Dies, and the Unnnamable - Samuel Beckett
13. A Hundred Little Hitlers - Elinor Langer
14. Selected Stories - Robert Walser
15. Hard Work: Remaking the American Labor Movement
16. Ferdydurke - Witold Gombrowicz
17. Killing the Black Body - Dorothy Roberts
18. Darkness at Noon - Arthur Koestler
19. Zeno's Conscience - Italo Svevo
20. Pale Fire - Vladimir Nabokov
21. Sundown Towns - James Loewen
22. Slowness - Milan Kundera
23. Crystal Frontier - Carlos Fuentes
24. Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and its Metaphors - Susan Sontag
25. As I Lay Dying - William Faulkner
26. Street of Crocodiles - Bruno Schulz*
27. Rereading America*


*= still in process, expected to complete by the end of the month


highlights: Selected Stories (Walser). the Clown. Gargoyles. Molloy. Hunger. Crystal Frontier. Pale Fire.
favorite nonfiction: Killing the Black Body
estimated number of pages read in the past 6 months: 8500
total number of books for the year: 43

Subjective

In an attempt to beat out both Saxon and Pitchfork, here's my end of the year selections for Top Ten Albums of 2007 (in chronological order, of course)

Ponytail - Kamehameha
Panda Bear - Person Pitch
Twilight Sad - Fourteen Autumns & Fifteen Winters
Love of Diagrams - Mosaic
Electrelane - No Shouts No Calls
Silver Daggers - New High and Ord
Angels of Light - We Are Him
Talib Kweli - Ear Drum
Jens Lekman - Night Falls Over Kortedala
Radiohead - In Rainbows


Honorable Mentions: Grinderman, No Age, the Ponys, Battles, Caribou, and the new Jay Z

...and some film reviews

Tonight I saw I'm Not There the Bob Dylan story as told by Todd Haynes through 6 actors including Cate Blanchett, Heath Ledger, and Richard Gere. I think this film is Todd Haynes most successful experiment to date (previous tries including Velvet Goldmine and Far From Heaven). The movie is interesting to say the least, blatantly tackling the mythology surrounding celebrity and the chameleon quality of Dylan himself. The film occasionally delves into Fellini-like metaphorical imagery which sometimes works, and sometimes seems really odd. The running time is fairly long, and the plot quite far from linear...not really a problem for me and I would recommend the film with all of its flaws.

Recently I rented Andrei Tarkovsky's first film Ivan's Childhood. The story revolves around a twelve year old boy whose entire family is killed in the war between the Nazis and the Soviets. After their deaths he becomes obsessed with revenge and works as a scout for the Soviets. He is angry but still very much a child with vivid dreams. Parts of this movie are incredibly beautiful and I really enjoyed the whole thing.

Lastly, I really don't need to add my voice to the praise for No Country For Old Men, but it has to be the best movie I've seen all year. A quiet, gory, existential, Southern Western critique of modern society and violence. A far better film than a book. I look forward to seeing it again soon.

So that's all for now, back to more "important" matters next week.

forget about Poitier

In the last week or so, I have had the pleasure of watching three distinct entries in the realm of "black cinema": Symbiopsychotaxiplasm, Shaft, and Killer of Sheep. I enjoyed all three films, but for very different reasons.

Symbio is an experimental independent film by the director William Greaves. Greaves is considered "the dean of black cinema" and has produced a few feature films as well as many documentaries. The documentaries all seem to center around black figures, history, or sociology of the black experience. I also saw Still a Brother this week which examined the black middle class and whether such a thing can even really exist, or whether it's just social imitation of the white middle class without being accepted by them. Anyway, Symbio was made in 1968 and was essentially a movie about making a movie. In some scenes we see the two actors in Central Park, but then we also see interactions between Greaves and the actors, and even between Greaves and the crew, and towards the end with a homeless man who wanders onscreen. There are also very interesting scenes where the crew of about ten would all sit in a room apart from Greaves and discuss how they perceived the meaning of the film and issues of reality (such as the audience not really being able to know whether the conversations they were having were authentic or scripted). This film, unlike the documentaries, had little to say about the black experience, but instead just seemed to be an experimental undertaking by a director who happened to be black.

Shaft is obviously the most well-known of the three movies. Generally considered the second blaxploitation film, one can see the key aspects and stereotypes that you would expect from such a film. Lately I've been thinking about why I even like blaxplotation. Negative stereotypes about black sexuality (ie. hypersexed) and tendency towards violence and crime are ever-present in this genre. Reading up on the history, the term "blaxploitation" was coined by the NAACP and the Urban League who condemned the genre and pushed for an end to these types of movies. Realistically blaxploitation films were only made for a 4 year period. However, for the most part these films were made for blacks by blacks. Black audiences tended to enjoy these films as they were a departure from the well-behaved, potentially tom-leaning black characters typically displayed in feature films. In blaxploitation, the black man gets away, he fucks white girls (and any other girls he wants), outsmarts the police, and beats up a ton of people. These characteristics can easily be seen as an outlet for the anger that had been pent up in the black community at that time. I also noticed that many films contain tangible statements about racial conflict, in a more honest way than you would see in mainstream films. I guess when it comes down to it, I like blaxploitation for many of the same reasons I enjoy gangster rap...it's supposed to be hedonistic and exaggerated. Just because it contains negative imagery doesn't mean that it also doesn't include real perspective on the difficulties of being a black person in America.

I already spoke of Killer of Sheep in a previous post, and now that I've actually seen the film, I can enthusiastically recommend it. The film is not centered around a narrative plot, but we do follow a few main characters through their activities over a couple of days in Watts. Whether the kids are playing by the train tracks, two men are trying to pick up an engine for a car, going to the liquor store, or just hanging around the house, the images are memorable and beautiful. The main character also works at a meatpacking warehouse where we see sheep being slaughtered over and over again. The juxtaposition of the the people in Watts with the scenes of the meatpacking plant creates a very strong visceral connection of oppression that I think is thought-provoking rather than heavy-handed.

Skinheads and Zombies

1.) I read a book this week entitled A Hundred Little Hitlers by Elinor Langer. I have been looking for books about the history of race relations in Portland and this is one of the only sources I could find on the subject. The central story is about the beating and murdering of an Ethiopian man by a group of skinheads in the late 1980s. I had briefly heard bits about this event somehow or another, but I was shocked to find out that the murder happened literally one block away from my house. The book also attempts to provide a history of the uprising of the Neo-Nazi movement, with Tom Metzger as the main character in that story. Metzger is a name I remember hearing growing up because the headquarters of White Aryan Resistance(WAR)/his house was located in Fallbrook, CA where my parents actually currently live. The other main piece of this whole story is that of the history of racism in Portland since its existence as a city. Initial laws basically banned African Americans from residing in the state. Then a low-income community called Vanport came into existence during the shipping boom, but that community dissipated due to a flood and whatever blacks were left moved into NE Portland. The most shocking piece of information to me was that the state of Oregon did not even ratify the 15th Amendment (the one that lets any male citizen vote regardless of race) until 1959. And actually due to a wikipedia search, I was even more surprised to find out that Oregon wasn't even the last state to ratify the 15th amendment...California, Maryland, Kentucky, and Tennessee all ratified after 1959...Tennessee didn't until 1997!

The case and the histories were all very interesting, but I think the overall point of the book was that after the constituents of Portland and Oregon got their symbolic victory over their history of racism...it really was mostly symbolic. The family of Seraw (the man who was murdered) was awarded 12.5 million dollars but only a fraction of that money would ever make it to the family. Metzger was made to sell his house, but other than that there wasn't much in the way of assets. Even the money that he would receive from supporters of WAR was often just diverted to another more anonymous PO Box. The organization that served as the prosecution for the case, profitted immensely by increased recognition and notoriety and therefore an increase in donations. Metzger is still able to conduct racist propaganda, meetings, and lectures and essentially hold on to his power withing the White Supremacy movement due to the First Amendment. And the Northwest, even specifically Portland, still maintains a reputation for skinhead activity and for many within the movement the Northwest still represents the "white American bastion."

2.)Last weekend I was finally able to see Night of the Living Dead. This may seem unrelated to the above writing about neo-Nazis, however I do think there is a connection on the basis of race relations in this country. I do not typically like horror films as a genre, mainly because I usually think they are just dumb, but I do have an appreciation for certain films and subgenres such as "zombie movies." I think a good horror film is one that uses visceral, maybe even ridiculous imagery to provide social commentary should one choose to read the movie that way. Zombie movies can be particularly telling about the current state of government/societal/technological control in a given country. Night of the Living Dead came out in 1968 and was mentioned in some reviews as a critique of American involvement in Vietnam. The movie takes place in middle America and features tons of American "casualities." However, I think the racial aspect of the film is particularly interesting and not all that often mentioned.

The plot of the film is basically that a group of people seek refuge from zombies in a farmhouse whose owner has already been killed. The group includes a small family, a young couple, a hysterical white girl, and the level-headed, extremely competent black man, Ben. Ben acts as leader and takes charge of boarding up windows and doors and doing what he can to protect the well-being of everyone in the house. In contrast, the white husband/father of the small family does weasley, self-centered, cowardly things on multiple occasions, even nearly getting Ben killed. Throughout the movie, one by one, everyone gets killed until Ben is the only one left. Simultaneously a posse of rednecks, led by the local sheriff have discovered that zombies can be killed by shooting them directly in the head and deactivating their brains. They basically act as a militia group and are quite successful at destroying the zombies in their community. They go to check out the farmhouse for any signs of zombies and end up shooting the only survivor Ben in the head, apparently mistaking him for a zombie.

Although the director, George Romero, claims that the only reason a black man was cast as the protagonist (still a fairly rare occurence) was because "he auditioned the best." I find it extremely difficult not to read things otherwise. 1968 may have been near the height of Vietnam, but it was also a key year in the Civil Rights Movement. Society has often dictated that a black person must put forth more effort, success, virtues than the average white person in order to be accepted, and even then people will seek to push you back down. The fact that Ben survived an extremely tense and diffcult ordeal, overcoming not only the zombies, but problems with other people in the house, only to be shot by the honky redneck posse seems incredibly ironic, but also incredibly apt for those times. It's also difficult not to see echoes of the assassinations of MLK and Malcolm X in a scene like that.

America the Feral

This week I finished Cormac McCarthy's novel "No Country For Old Men." I don't have much to say about the book specifically; I thought it was fine and I'm looking forward to the film. This book did however trigger some familiar ideas about "violence" and why we seem to be so drawn to it. I did a little research this week about violence and the history of the Southern Gothic novel.

I only came across a few theories about the existence of violence in society. One mode of thinking comes from James W. Prescott who theorizes that violent behavior stems from a lack of mother-child bonding (classic blame your parents for your problems). Additionally he thinks that sexual repression and punishment of children can also serve as causes for violence. On the other hand, Stephen Pinker believes that violent behavior is evolutionarily derived. While either of these attempt to explain where violence comes from, no one has much to say about why we are drawn to violence...human nature I suppose. Mock violence has been a regular part of society for some time in the form of sports and male bonding. Even the Eucharist has violent undertones.

When it comes to literature, you really cannot beat Southern Gothic for its gore factor. I happened across a master's thesis from a woman at the University of Tartu in Estonia (what?). She wrote her paper about Faulkner and McCarthy and provided a good summary of how "traditional Gothic" and "Southern Gothic" are linked. All gothic literature deals with the development and existence of evil. Gothic stories are different from other fictionals genres because we see a shift from sympathy with the "victim side" over to the "villain side." Characters and even protagonists at times are essentially "villain-heroes." Evil itself is seen less as some alien force created by the Devil, and instead is seen as an independent psychopathological force from the Freudian unconscious. This helps to explain why so much Southern literature deals with the "grotesque." Grotesque characters are often freaks, or people with physical deformities, or psychopaths, but they are characters that induce both empathy and disgust. So when we read these books, we are often confronted with feelings of discomfort and even humor due to the presence of the grotesque.

Poe is the direct link between traditional and Southern gothic. He writes much in the style of the traditional, but is from the Southern United States. What separates Southern Gothic from its predecessor is that these stories deal with issues specific to the South. The issues range from dealing with a racist heritage, loss and deprivation of history as a result of the defeat in the civil war, and religious fanaticism. Flannery O'Connor, William Faulkner, and Cormac McCarthy are all prominent authors. Faulkner makes the actions of his villains compelling and even offers compassion for them while withholding justification. O'Connor often tackles religious fanatics in her stories where misinterpretation of the Christian faith is often the first crime and some can read her stories as warnings for faith gone astray. I have read in multiple places how Flannery's intentions were partially to show how everyone is in need of grace, because really in even her most horrific characters we can find something to sympathize with them about. McCarthy is obviously enamored of both of these authors and follows in their tradition with a slight Southwestern twist. In the novel I just finished, you actually listen to characters philosophize about how times are changing for the worse, and society is becoming more violent.

I personally love Southern Gothic literature and bloody cult films, but I have no desire to shoot a gun and I don't like to see people fighting in real life...I think this is pretty common amongst a lot of people. Research on violence in the media and videogames often shows little justification for a correlation between violence watched and violence acted out. This seems pretty obvious considering what percentage of people are exposed to violent movies (just about everybody) compared to how many commit violent crimes. None of this explains why we enjoy watching it though...is it a form of escapism? and if so, how odd that we can on one hand "root for" the villain in a book or in Grand Theft Auto, but in real-life can be so cold towards those actual people accused of commiting violent crimes...

Flannery looking tough.

heaven is a Behringer Eurorack Compact Mixer MX602A

Since Saxon is getting serious about putting out a zine by the end of the year, I decided I should also get serious about writing something to contribute. Idea #1: "the Presence of the Spiritual in Noise. Today I sent out the following plea for info to members of Yellow Swans, Wolf Eyes, and Oscillating Innards:

I am in the process of writing an article examining the idea of spirituality in noise music. Historically, the genre of noise has been linked with ideas of evil, destruction, power, violence, aggression, etc. (ie. Whitehouse, Boyd Rice, Throbbing Gristle) However, listening to many contemporary artists, including your project, it seems likely that “destruction” is not the only or even primary element, but rather the music can mirror or serve to represent a type of life cycle- destruction leading to creation or rebirth.

“Noise” often seems to display transition or struggle in an auditory format. One can see connections between the trajectory of the music and the transitions and struggles inherent in our constantly evolving world. The Industrial Revolution undoubtedly changed humanity and society, and in the course of our history serves as a huge reference point dividing up historical eras. As we are still living in an age highly impacted by industry and technology, it seems fitting that “noise” would find a way to create art through the use of actual metal objects as instrument or intimidating circuit boards of “futuristic-looking” cords and pedals and “machines.” I also find it interesting that for performers who choose to incorporate vocals in some form, these vocals almost always seem to have some type of affect and are either muffled and nearly lost in the sea of noise or striving to be heard above it. It’s as though the human voice is trying to survive and be heard amongst the other noise/chaos of the world; a constant struggle representative of the human condition.

Through the building up, crashing, climaxing, and maybe even the silences, “noise” seems to be tapping into some type of spiritual level of death, rebirth, and struggle. In addition, when watching noise performances live, one can witness this juxtaposition of humanity and technology battling it out or perhaps technology enhancing “humanness” through the performer’s dominion over it. I am curious to know any of your thoughts on the subjects presented in the last few paragraphs and whether you even consider “noise” to contain spiritual elements. I am also interested why you began creating this type of music and what it means to you, and also why you choose to express yourself through “noise” rather than a more “conventional” genre. I look forward to hearing your perspective and thank you in advance.

(anyway, we'll see what comes of it)

January to June: books

I tried to find a statistics regarding the number of books the average American reads per year, and instead found out that 58% of the US adult population never reads another book after high school...
Here's the books I've completed so far (in chronological order by date of completion)

1. The Glass Bead Game - Hermann Hesse (Jan 25)
2. The Satanic Verses - Salman Rushdie (Feb 3)
3. Cities on a Hill - Frances Fitzgerald (Feb 20)
4. The Plague - Albert Camus (Mar 3)
5. Go Tell It on the Mountain - James Baldwin (Mar 7)
6. The Heart is a Lonely Hunter - Carson McCullers (Mar 10)
7. And Still We Rise - Miles Corwin (Mar 15)
8. A Room of One's Own - Virginia Woolf (Mar 16)
9. Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man - James Joyce (Apr 6)
10. How to Read and Why - Harold Bloom (Apr 18)
11. Why White Kids Love Hip Hop - Bakari Kitwana (Apr 24)
12. And the Ass Saw the Angel - Nick Cave (May 10)
13. Miss Lonelyhearts/Day of the Locust - Nathanael West (May 19)
14. Saint Francis - Nikos Kazantzakis (June 12)
15. Wandering - Hermann Hesse (June 17)
16. To the Lighthouse - Virginia Woolf (June 29)

a start.

Basically I just wanted a blog because my two best friends have one and I didn't want to be left out.

I also need practice writing, but in a way where I won't feel so self conscious (which is what always happens when I attempt to write anything "real" because I'm a critic before I'm a creator) and in my opinion a blog is like writing-lite. It doesn't have to be important or elucidating all though I'd guess that accidently happens more often than not.

My main critique of blogs is the same of journals: they are usually quite boring. And to be honest, I find my current life to fall under the category of "fairly mundane." However, I think a good story has less to do with the plot and more to do with the manner of telling. I hope to release a few good stories, a few musings about concepts, and a few sociological observations....to let the harsh critic in me take a rest...