Monday, February 08, 2010

A stretch of river LVII: "Something old folks do while waiting to croak"

Because you people are at least as cool as I am, I've decided to give you a little glimpse behind the scenes of that arranging, deepening, enchanting thing we do here. (Image found here.)

So. It's a snowy Monday morning here, I'm tromping about in the park with Scruffy in about five inches of new snow, there's been so little wind that even the thinnest tree branches have as much as two inches of snow on them, I'm kicking myself yet again for not having a camera to take some pictures to share here with my reader(s), I'm thinking Hmm--I haven't had a Stretch of River post in a while . . . and then I recall this from Nick Carr (via Andrew Sullivan:

I remember when it was kind of cool to be a blogger. You'd walk around with a swagger in your step, a twinkle in your eye. Now it's just humiliating. Blogging has become like mahjong or needlepoint or clipping coupons out of Walgreens circulars: something old folks do while waiting to croak.

[snip]

In 2006, 28% of teens were blogging [according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project]. Now, just three years later, the percentage has tumbled to 14%. Among twentysomethings, the percentage who write blogs has fallen from 24% to 15%. Writing comments on blogs is also down sharply among the young. It's only geezers - those over 30 - who are doing more blogging than they used to.
This past Friday, the geezer whose tinkling of the QWERTY-keys you're now reading rode his bicycle out to his weekly tutoring job, a round-trip of almost 36 miles. I'm a healthy geezer, but a geezer (I'll turn 48 in April). But I'm healthy!

And good old Blog Meridian is fast approaching blogospheric geezerdom as well--it will celebrate its 6th birthday on the 27th of this month. To paraphrase the Barbara Mandrell song, I was bloggin' when bloggin' was still cool.

I visited the survey to see if I could gain any insight as to why this dramatic, sudden demographic shift might be occurring. After all: aren't teenagers at least as self-absorbed as the baby-boomers and Gen-Xers who now comprise the majority of bloggers? Well, yes. But the rapid rise of Facebook among younger folks would seem to suggest that they are just as self-absorbed as they always have been--they just want to express that self-absorption more rapidly than blogs permit. No time to wallow. Now, a blog, on the other hand . . . but for the addition of the "L," it would read "bog": a really good place to wallow.

Carr's despair is rooted in his realization that "30 is the new 60," or something like that. I don't feel despair; it's really more like a puzzlement: Blogging brings me such regular enjoyment that it's hard for me to imagine more people, and younger people, don't find it equally enjoyable. Besides, I gave up deluding myself that I'm cool, or have or ever had a chance of becoming cool, a long time ago--back in high school, in fact. Now, it is true that I do ride a bike on a more-or-less regular basis, and here in Wichita that fact has the status of being so cool it's not yet cool. I'm actually cutting edge in something. Deal. But then again, all I have to do is dredge up this little missive and . . .
It's not hard, then, to find "cooless" suspect: maybe certain bands or writers, let's say, are unknown to all but a few initiates for a reason--they SUCK! And if your tastes in music run toward such bands/writers that suck, well, then, why should I buy into your anti-hype of "Nobody's heard of 'em!!"? But then again, I'm not cool, 'cause I'm, like, old, even if I do have a blog, so what do I know?

Read More...

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Excerpts from "The White Bird"

Image found here.

What follows are a few passages from John Berger, "The White Bird" (my source is Selected Essays). They might have some relation to some things I was trying to get at in my post on Serra and the Irreproducible. Maybe. But even if they don't, many thanks to Jim, in his comment on that post, for pointing me in this essay's direction. Reading Berger is always invigorating in its own right. Apologies for the length, but I want to show how Berger arrives where he does, and Berger is nothing if not a patient writer, showing his work. Especially in the case of the arts, anyone can declaim. Berger's great appeal for me is that he explains.

Everything not bracketed is Berger's own.

Urban living has always tended to produce a sentimental view of nature. Nature is thought of as a garden, or a view framed by a window, or as an arena of freedom. Peasants, sailors, nomads have known better. Nature is energy and struggle. It is what exists without any promise. If it can be thought of by man as an arena, a setting, it has to be thought of as one which lends itself as much to evil as to good. Its energy is fearsomely indifferent. The first necessity of life is shelter. Shelter against nature. The first prayer is for protection. The first sign of life is pain. If the Creation was purposeful, its purpose is a hidden one which can only be discovered intangibly within signs, never by the evidence of what happens.

It is within this bleak natural context that beauty is encountered, and the encounter is by its nature sudden and unpredictable. The gale blows itself out, the sea changes from the colour of grey shit to aquamarine. Under the fallen boulder of an avalanche a flower grows. Over the shanty town the moon rises. I offer dramatic examples so as to insist on the bleakness of the context. Reflect upon more everyday examples. However it is encountered, beauty is always an exception, always in despite of. This is why it moves us.

[snip]

[T]here seem to be certain constants which all cultures have found 'beautiful': among them--certain flowers, trees, forms of rocks, birds, animals, the moon, running water . . .

One is obliged to acknowledge a coincidence or perhaps a congruence. The evolution of natural forms and the evolution of human perception have coincided to produce the phenomenon of a potential recognition: what is and what we can see (and by seeing also feel) sometimes meet at a point of affirmation. This point, this coincidence, is two-faced: what has been seen is recognized and affirmed and, at the same time, the seer is affirmed by what he sees. For a brief moment one finds oneself--without the pretensions of a creator--in the position of God in the first chapter of Genesis . . . And he saw that it was good. The aesthetic emotion before nature derives, I believe, from this double affirmation.

Yet we do not live in the first chapter of Genesis. We live--if one follows the biblical sequence of events--after the Fall. In any case, we live in a world of suffering in which evil is rampant, a world whose events do not confirm our Being, a world that has to be resisted. It is in this situation that the aesthetic moment offers hope. That we find a crystal or a poppy beautiful means that we are less alone[; . . .] its form, perceived as such, becomes a message that one receives but cannot translate because, in it, all is instantaneous. For an instant, the energy of one's perception becomes inseparable from the energy of the creation.

[snip]

[. . . .]Art does not imitate nature, it imitates a creation, something to propose an alternative world, sometimes simply to amplify, to confirm, to make social the brief hope offered by nature. Art is an organized response to what nature allows us to glimpse occasionally. Art sets out to transform the potential recognition into an unceasing one. It proclaims man in the hope of receiving a surer reply . . . the transcendental face of art is always a form of prayer.

UPDATE (February 8): Over at Musings from the Hinterland, Randall pursues Berger's ideas in a couple of fruitful and compelling directions. Go and read.

Read More...

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

James Joyce: Comedy, and Irony as Principle-Weapon

(Or: Toward the Resurrection of Irony)

James Joyce, by César Abin. Image found here.

Today is James Joyce's birthday, and before the day slips away any further, I wanted to start a conversation that I hope will honor him.

In case anyone is wondering, "Principle-Weapon" is intentional.

Some assertions, in no particular order:

*Joyce was often very funny, but his mode was not humor but comedy.

*To quote one of my college English profs: "Comedy is deadly serious."

*Comedy's great subject is the Life Force: the affirmation, preservation and perpetuation of life--hence its seriousness. Its word is Love; its creed is Molly Bloom's final Yes; its churches are the conjugal bed and the kitchen; its parish the front porch.

*Irony is comedy's greatest weapon, exposing, when wielded most effectively, that which does not affirm the Life Force (hence, "principle-weapon").

[UPDATE: Here's an example of what I mean: In A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Stephen Dedalus (Joyce's stand-in) is explaining to his friend Cranley why he (Stephen) has lost his faith. Cranley thinks Stephen's disaffection is with Catholicism and sxo asks him why he doesn't become a Protestant. Stephen's response: "`I said that I had lost my faith,' Stephen said, `but not that I had lost my self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?'" Whatever one may think of Stephen's assessment of the doctrine of being saved by grace through faith, that line always makes me, a good Lutheran, both laugh out loud and ponder a bit.]

*Irony would not be dead if people still accepted that the preservation and perpetuation of life were not merely a Grand Narrative to be suspicious of and instead is and remains both a sacred and a secular Ultimate Concern.


(Inspired by and in part quoted from my response to Jim at this post.)

Read More...

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Richard Serra and the Irreproducible

[UPDATE: The title for this post, I should have noted, has its origin in a comment by Jim: "Ok. Yes, Serra looks cool photographed. But I think there’s something very thought-out & challenging to how we — ok, I — tend to experience art these days in the way that he creates experiences that by virtue of their construction cannot be reproduced." [his italics]

Richard Serra, The Matter of Time (Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao). Image found here.

Follow the link just above, and you'll see that Jim Sligh of This Analog Life "scanned [this image] from a postcard a visiting friend bought for [him] in the giftshop." What you see is a copy of a scan of a photograph, itself reproduced who knows how many times and in how many places. If you read Jim's post, you'll see that he has linked to other, really good photos of Serra's work but in the same breath tells you that looking at pictures is "the dumbest way to experience Serra ever." He is right. This picture itself tells you this implicitly: "You have to be 'here' (which is really 'there')."

Well, I'm not. Bilbao is out of reach just now for various temporal and material reasons. But as I told Jim in a comment on his post, I keep returning to his post to keep looking at this picture, that I find it compelling in a way I find very little sculpture, of any sort (an idea I hadn't realized I thought, and one which caught me by surprise), and I keep trying to figure out why that is. This post is an attempt to do that.

It will probably fail; that's why the rest of it is below the fold.

As long-time readers of this blog know, I post fairly frequently on art, but the vast majority of those posts deal with paintings and drawings. They almost never mention sculpture, and then only in passing. I'd never really thought--at all--about why that is before a couple of days ago, when I first saw the post on Serra at Jim's blog and said, Wait a minute . . .

I like sculpture well enough. When my Humanities students and I meet in Kansas City at the Nelson-Atkins, as we will again this May, I make it a point to show them the full-size bronze cast of Rodin's The Thinker on the south side of the museum. We walk around the plinth it sits on, looking up as we do (the top of the plinth is about head-height; the sculpture itself sits on that and is itself around 7' or so from its base to its highest point); we talk about things such as the figure's distended, gnarled toes and Rodin's attempt to make the bronze look as though it had been carved rather than poured. It's cool to see this famous sculpture. But that's about it, as far as my engagement with that or just about any other sculpture is concerned. I get the idea that sculpture's there-ness, its occupying of space, makes its viewer have to deal with it in some way, if only to avoid it or walk around it. But then that makes our interaction with sculpture sound like the piece is like one of those people we have to interact with out of politeness--if we must. Which is to say, there's no genuine interaction except at the level of What's Expected of Us. It remains in its space, posing no ultimate challenge to mine. Even pieces as undeniably beautiful as Michelangelo's Pieta or Bernini's Ecstasy of St. Teresa, if this make sense, confront me without moving me. Or, put another way: Even though I very much enjoy looking at them, I don't feel the need to keep looking at them. Paintings, on the other hand, I will return to again and again, the Nelson's Rembrandt, for example: they don't engage my physical space, but they engage my imagination as very few sculptures do.

There are exceptions, of course. I've never seen Rodin's Burghers of Calais (scroll to the bottom of the page for a brief discussion of the sculpture) in person, but I get the feeling that I would want to walk around and around it and want to come back to it again. The reason: It photographs terribly. It has no "good side," which is to say that no one side presents itself to the viewer as the side to be seen. It--that is, the experience of seeing it in person--is irreproducible because it is so designed that it requires us to move around it. (The Thinker, by comparison, is a depiction of a very large naked guy sitting on a rock. He is shown in three dimensions and so has a back side to him, but that back side is, of course, the least interesting of his sides. So, take a picture of him from the front or in profile and, apart from its massiveness and the subtleties of texture you've reproduced a surprising amount of the reason to see it. This is not meant to be dismissive of a justly-famous sculpture; it's simply so.)

Though I've not seen the Burghers in person, I have seen a sculpture that I think owes much to Rodin's work, the sculpted soldiers at the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. This one photographs poorly as well, but I can attest that seeing it in person is a very moving experience. You can't actually walk among the sculptures, but you can get so close to them that their size (each figure is well over 7' tall) creates the sense that you are. Moreover, their very different expressions and attitudes give the space a sense of tension and urgency that very few war memorials do that I've ever visited. These men are not on parade but on patrol. We are in their way.

Is the nearby Vietnam Memorial also sculptural in its treatment and shaping of the space the visitor occupies? The way that the visitor begins at ground level, the wall of names just a few inches tall; then, as the years progress and the wall of names gets taller, taller as the path gradually declines, till the visitor reaches the angle and the wall--one's reflection and the names on it--is all one can see? I had of course seen pictures of the Memorial and pictures of people weeping at it. I assumed that those people were grieving friends and family they had lost; I assumed that I would not be so moved if I ever visited it. And then I visited it. I lost no family or friends in that war; I was a child then, even now vividly recalling the nightly reports of dead and injured but otherwise unmoved by the war; yet that day I visited, the only thing I could think as I reached that place was, I am in a tomb. How can one not keep from getting teary-eyed there? I would like to know the secret, because I find myself really reluctant to visit it again, even though I want to.

It's an emotionally-dangerous space.

Also in Washington is a space made to feel physically-dangerous by a sculpture: the atrium of the East Wing of the National Gallery of Art, over which hangs Alexander Calder's enormous Mobile #3. The first time I saw it, I was standing in a queue to be admitted to a big Art Nouveau exhibit in that wing; since the queue was a couple hundred people long, I had a nice long time to contemplate Calder's work. It looks light and delicate . . . and then you look more closely at the shaft and hook from which it hangs--it looks like something from a construction site--and it suddenly loses a lot of its gossamer-like quality. But not all of it, of course. It's beautiful to look at, in the same way that an airplane in flight is beautiful to look at. But the physics of each, the forces required to keep each in the air, are very real, very much also part of what we're looking at--indeed, those forces are required to be present so that these things keep on being beautiful. And that makes us more attentive to our space, our place in that space.

This is also Serra's territory as a sculptor: the creating of a silent dialogue among the viewer, his materials and the forms they take, and not the defiance of physics (the way so much constructed metal sculpture can feel) but the implicit reminder to the viewer who moves among these pieces, via the fact that they don't come toppling on him, that despite the way things seem in the world, here the very oldest laws of the world are at work. By way of illustrating, here are two short passages on Serra's work that I want to put in proximity with each other:

At the dawn of the 21st century, an era of cyberspace, reproduction and the Internet, no one is doing more to make work that stands for the ancient and mysterious power of the real. --from a Time review of a documentary on the making of Matter of Time, found here via Jim's post.

"[T]he main character of Serra's work [is] its scariness. You are never allowed to forget the weight of Serra's metal. The possibility of being crushed by it is part of its sculptural effect. It addresses the body through anxiety, and this is a thoroughly legitimate though long-repressed function of sculpture at its most archaic level." --Robert Hughes, American Visions: The Epic History of Art in America, p. 568

It is hard to articulate all this because you can't reproduce via pictures, and barely through words, what's at work here. I suppose that that's the reason I find myself returning to the picture at the top of this post--it is like reading a poem whose meaning eludes one (Wallace Stevens says in his poem "Man Carrying Thing" that "the poem must resist intelligence/Almost successfully"). The sculptor made these forms, yes; but they signify something other than themselves. Or, more accurately, they can fully signify only with our physical, irreproducible presence there.

I don't mean to imply a religious or spiritual significance for these pieces, but I keep returning in my mind to Stonehenge and other monumental ancient solar calendars as a way to begin thinking about Serra's work. Without human agency, the movements of the sun and moon and stars would have no transcendant meaning. Those movements would be no less real, but they would not signify what the ancients said they signified. Serra doesn't build sun calendars; but, like the sun, his works obey the laws of physics even as they push those laws very, very hard. As the shapes of his pieces compel the viewer to move around and into them, their sides leaning this way and that and their tops opening wide or converging, light and sound changing as the viewer moves about, those laws become more present in our experience: they alter so as to be noticed, and the viewer changes as well. Something even more primitive than "ancient" occurs--indeed, you can't get any more ancient, or irreproducible, than "real."
__________
Bonus: A collection of short videos of Serra's work and interviews with him from the Museum of Modern Art's 2007 exhibition of Serra sculptures. The videos are shorter than I would like, but they do give something of the sense of what it's like to move around/between/through these pieces.

Read More...

Saturday, January 30, 2010

When the Muse phones it in, the poet should not mail it in

Via Andrew Sullivan, this bit by Elisa Gabbert made me laugh out loud, but her larger point is right on:

Here's what I'd like to see more of in submissions: IDEAS. Why don't poems have more ideas? So many poems I read are essentially just descriptions. So you went outside. It was beautiful. Or not. I don't care how creatively you describe it, if it didn't trigger any thoughts beyond "Hells yeah I am going to describe this," it's not a poem.

Read More...

Friday, January 29, 2010

"The greatest mind ever to stay in prep school": On Salinger and The Catcher in the Rye

The cover illustration for the September 15, 1961 edition of Time, by Robert Vickrey. Image found here.

The quote in the title is widely attributed to Norman Mailer. No matter who said it, though, to my mind it's among the better one-sentence assessments of a writer's abilities that you're likely to find. Salinger is one of that impressive list of American writers who lived a long time but wrote little but what they did write was highly regarded and who, for whatever reason, seemed to reach a wall they could or would not write their way past. Ralph Ellison (whose first novel, Invisible Man, is the sort of thing that's so good that it's completely understandable that his second novel remained uncompleted and wasn't published till after he died) is perhaps the most significant member of that list, but others are Harper Lee (To Kill a Mockingbird), Truman Capote (no book-length work after In Cold Blood), Henry Roth (his 1934 novel Call It Sleep was highly regarded and then forgotten in part because nothing else appeared by him until sixty years later with his Mercy of a Rude Stream tetralogy (two of which were published before he died). In Ellison's defense, he lost his manuscript (about ten years' worth of labor) in a house fire (in those stone-age days before thumb drives) and so had to re-write it; who knows about Harper Lee--she will talk about anything else, I've heard, except her work or that one marvelous novel; the film Capote implicitly argues that the experience of researching and writing In Cold Blood wrecked Capote emotionally; Roth suffered from depression but also, for a very long time, simply abandoned writing.

But Salinger? There had been rumors early in the just-completed decade that Salinger had a novel coming out, and in the obituary I read yesterday, he was quoted as saying that he wrote all the time for his own pleasure; but I think, personally, Mailer's one-off is on to something: Salinger became an old man, but he just didn't grow (up) as a writer. Holden Caufield is, for many, many people, the mid-twentieth-century voice of teenage angst, and that is indeed something on which to hang one's reputational hat. But I wish all those people outraged by Catcher's "goddamn"'s back in the day had engaged in some Fourth-Stage Literary Criticism and realized something pretty basic about the Literature/Life dynamic: Caufield will always be a teenager, and the teenager that he is; the teenagers reading about him, one hopes, will not.

In case you're interested, below the fold I have a little story about my first and only experience reading Catcher. It's worth telling because it's not the usual experience-reading-Catcher story: I was also teaching it to some college students. There's also some further yammering.

I didn't choose to teach it. Here's what happened: At my previous school, one of my colleagues resigned his position one summer to take on a job as a newspaper editor in his home state of Missouri. He'd already established the book list for the class (20th Century American Literature) and the books had been ordered. The class was going to make. And it was in my field. The chair asked me to take it on, and I agreed.

I wasn't entirely sure why my colleague had selected it, but I was glad to see Catcher on the reading list because it would give me a reason to get around to reading it. Of course, while I was growing up--I remember first hearing about it via whispered tones in grade school--it had for most all adolescents my age something of a talismanic quality because it had a reputation as one of those books adults thought kids shouldn't be reading. Hearing talk about it was a lot like hearing talk about sex: the subject was something magical and forbidden that more of us pretended to know something about than actually did and, in any event, was surely every bit as good as, if not better than, everyone said it was.

Sorry, Salinger-philes: Sex is better than The Catcher in the Rye.

Where were we . . . . ?

Oh, yes--I remember: Lots of books have reputations that precede them and Catcher is surely one of them, for the reasons above and for others as well. So, as I read it and made notes for teaching it, that reputation became for me part of what I wanted to talk about. That, in fact, became more interesting for me than the novel as a whole. Parts of it remain quite vivid--in particular, Holden's hiring the prostitute and only talking with her, thus putting a poignant spin on the joke my fellow male high-schoolers had thought was just the funniest thing:

"What's a four-letter word ending in 'k' that means 'intercourse'?"

"Talk."


In fact, that joke, now that I think about it, is very like how Catcher in the Rye read for me and, I suspect, for my students as well. It teases and tempts with the promise of hearing something true and/but forbidden, but it ends up telling us something true and, well, something all of us who live long enough will go through, being broadened in the meantime--something not forbidden but, on the contrary, crucial to know and yet, in its way, a bit ordinary as well. Some of my students, good Southern Baptists, were (or pretended to be) a bit taken aback by the language, but as I pointed out in the instance of Holden's boarding-school friend, who is Jewish and whose name escapes me just now, "Quit talking about my goddamned religion," they don't really hear what they are saying--which makes that particular instance, for me, not shocking but genuinely funny in its oxymoronic quality. It's an adjective, but none of Caufiled's peers see it as really describing anything--and certainly not in the word's comdemnatory sense. It's just something kids say.

It's that sort of thing that Salinger gets exactly right in his novel. Caufield--not his language but his tone--sounds just like a teenager. Anyone wanting some lessons in how to write young-adult fiction needs to read this novel. But despite his moments when he sees through the phoniness of adults and despite his dream in which he keeps kids in the rye field from running off the cliff by catching them before they reach the edge, Holden never sees what might be genuine about adult experience; he doesn't know, the cliff aside, what he's protecting the children from. He remains frozen in adolescence. He never seems to glimpse what it might mean, for him, to grow up.

As I started thinking about this post, I found myself thinking about another famous American novel, very controversial as well, whose narrator is an adolescent boy, likewise confronted by and dismissive of phoniness and whose first name, coincidentally, begins with an "H": The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. One of my students this semester asked me if there was a novel I could read over and over again, and I chose Huckleberry Finn. As many times as I have read it, I still find myself getting frustrated and even angry with the title character, as he makes me laugh, as I see his growing awareness and epiphany regarding Jim and then, in the space of a few hours in the novel's time, reverting to going along with Tom Sawyer's playing Count of Monte Cristo with Jim's freedom once Tom shows up at the Phelps place in the last quarter of the novel. Why, if he were my kid . . . , I think. And that's it: Huck is our kid (those of us with teenagers), knowing right from wrong and having a kind of wisdom about people and the way things are screwed up and the way things should be that we wish we had when we were that age, and yet . . . (you parents can fill in that ellipsis as well as I can). I remember not feeling that frustration with Holden while reading The Catcher in the Rye; I felt sad for him, even pity, but not frustration. He condemns what he sees, but he doesn't really know. Huck, however partially and however imperfectly he may act as a result, knows.

So, as Huck plans to light out for the territory on the novel's final page, my understanding of that is not that he seeks to preserve as best he can the illusions of adolescence (Tom's "howling adventures amongst the Indians") but precisely to escape them--he wants to head out there "ahead of the rest." (True, Aunt Polly's sivilizing (note the serpentine shape of that "s") looms, but he wants even to leave Tom and Jim behind.) He knows, in other words, whereof he speaks or, rather, acts against as he seeks to protect himself. He has seen a boy his age try to kill others and be killed over something the cause of which the people shooting at each other can't even remember: A transcendant phoniness if there ever was one. Not meaning to disparage Holden's (legitimate) critique of phoniness, but: What, really, does Holden know by comparison? And, given how the novel ends, how will Holden ever know?

In his (very smart and very engaging) book, A Colder Eye: The Modern Irish Writers, Hugh Kenner says of Flann O'Brien (who'd be on the Irish version of that list of American writers above) and (after winning some fame for his best-known novel, The Third Policeman) his fateful choice (Kenner's judgment) to write a thrice-weekly newspaper column for the Irish Times for 26 years, "A great future lay behind him." That's very much like the way I think of Salinger and why I feel some sadness at his passing.

UPDATE: You could have spared yourselves a whole lot of reading to getn pretty much the same take on Salinger by visiting Randall's place . . .

Read More...

Friday, January 22, 2010

Gretchen Parlato and, um, something else

Greetings to my new students who may have found your way over here. I encourage you to have a look around. For a selection of older posts that I'm not too embarrassed about, scroll down and look in the right gutter for the section called "Assemblages."

Someone in one of my classes asked me what kind of music I like. I think I said something like "Everything." But I'll go ahead and stick my neck out this early in the semester and post an example of something I think is especially good that I've just come across. Give a listen to this new-to-me jazz singer, Gretchen Parlato, and her live cover of the SWV song, "Weak." Apologies for the tinny sound, but the piano playing, the rhythm section's groove, and the way that Parlato's voice, perfectly intelligible, becomes more like another instrument in the band, are head-noddingly good:



Oh--and speaking of head nodding . . . I shared with my classes that this had gotten stuck in my head last weekend and, as of Thursday morning, was still in there:



You press the "Play" icon at your peril. The Biggie Smalls bits are not safe for work; the Miley Cyrus bits are not safe, period.

Read More...

Monday, January 18, 2010

Quote of the day

Not the most uplifting thing to read if you're a teacher and it's the weekend before a new semester begins:

"The University of Santa Teresa was like a cemetery that suddenly begins to think, in vain. It was also like an empty dance club." --Roberto Bolaño, 2666
Still, poetry.

Read More...

Friday, January 15, 2010

Stuff I'm reading

The cover of Roberto Bolaño's novel, 2666, which, as you'll see below, is among the Stuff I'm Reading. Image found here.

Besides printouts of PowerPoint presentations being shown to us, memos, and drafts of new syllabi, I mean. Yes: It's week-before-Spring-Semester week, with all that entails. But in the evenings, I try to set aside some time to watch and think deep thoughts about Big XII basketball, and read other stuff. Here's a quick list:

Via Andrew Sullivan comes the reminder that Roger Ebert has a blog. This is a good thing in light of the fact that because of some recent surgery, he has lost the ability to speak--and, I learned yesterday, to eat and drink. What must that be like? Some excerpts from his response below:

[When I came to understand I could no longer eat or drink,] I dreamed. I was reading Cormac McCarthy's Suttree, and there's a passage where the hero, lazing on his river boat on a hot summer day, pulls up a string from the water with a bottle of orange soda attached to it and drinks. I tasted that pop so clearly I can taste it today. Later he's served a beer in a frosted mug. I don't drink beer, but the frosted mug evoked for me a long-buried memory of my father and I driving in his old Plymouth to the A&W Root Beer stand (gravel driveways, carhop service, window trays) and his voice saying "...and a five-cent beer for the boy." The smoke from his Lucky Strike in the car. The heavy summer heat.

For nights I would wake up already focused on that small but heavy glass mug with the ice sliding from it, and the first sip of root beer. I took that sip over and over. The ice slid down across my fingers again and again. But never again.

One day in the hospital my brother-in-law Johnny Hammel and his wife Eunice came to visit. They are two of my favorite people. They're Jehovah's Witnesses, and know I'm not. I mention that because they interpreted my story in terms of their faith. I described my fantasies about root beer. I could smell it, taste it, feel it. I desired it. I said I'd remembered so clearly that day with my father for the first time in 60 years.

"You never thought about it before?" Johnny asked.

"Not once."

"Could be, when the Lord took away your drinking, he gave you back that memory."

Whether my higher power was the Lord or Cormac McCarthy, those were the words I needed to hear. And from that time I began to replace what I had lost with what I remembered. If I think I want an orange soda right now, it is after all only a desire. People have those all the time. For that matter, when I had the chance, when was the last time I held one of those tall Nehi glass bottles? I doubt I ever had one from a can.

[snip]

Let me return to the original question: Isn't it sad to be unable eat or drink? Not as sad as you might imagine. I save an enormous amount of time. I have control of my weight. Everything agrees with me. And so on.

What I miss is the society. Lunch and dinner are the two occasions when we most easily meet with friends and family. They're the first way we experience places far from home. Where we sit to regard the passing parade. How we learn indirectly of other cultures. When we feel good together. Meals are when we get a lot of our talking done -- probably most of our recreational talking. That's what I miss. Because I can't speak that's's another turn of the blade. I can sit at a table and vicariously enjoy the conversation, which is why I enjoy pals like my friend McHugh so much, because he rarely notices if anyone else isn't speaking. But to attend a "business dinner" is a species of torture. I'm no good at business anyway, but at least if I'm being bad at it at Joe's Stone Crab there are consolations.

When we drive around town I never look at a trendy new restaurant and wish I could eat there. I peer into little storefront places, diners, ethnic places, and then I feel envy. After a movie we'll drive past a formica restaurant with only two tables occupied, and I'll wish I could be at one of them, having ordered something familiar and and reading a book. I never felt alone in a situation like that. I was a soloist.

[snip]

So that's what's sad about not eating. The loss of dining, not the loss of food. It may be personal, but for, unless I'm alone, it doesn't involve dinner if it doesn't involve talking. The food and drink I can do without easily. The jokes, gossip, laughs, arguments and shared memories I miss. Sentences beginning with the words, "Remember that time?" I ran in crowds where anyone was likely to break out in a poetry recitation at any time. Me too. But not me anymore. So yes, it's sad. Maybe that's why I enjoy this blog. You don't realize it, but we're at dinner right now.


I'm a couple hundred pages into Roberto Bolaño's magnum opus, 2666. What I know about it is chiefly through its 37-word summation (of a 900-page novel) on the back cover and both it and the author's reputation--in this country, gained after his too-early death; but what I can tell you so far is that this novel does not telegraph its destination(s?). I don't mean that in the sense of plot-twists, though. In what I've read, the disappearances of the women mentioned on the cover have certainly been mentioned and sort of talked about, but only in a sort of casual, making-conversation sort of way. They're by no means the narratives' (yes--more than one) focal points. "So far," please note. I have no sense of what will happen. But it is in that sense that I realized, as I was thinking about it this morning, that this novel reads like a poem: as a text that can't be segmented into scenes but has to be considered whole. That is a rare thing to be able to say about a novel. And a beautiful thing.

And, just to reassure (or horrify) those of you wondering (or hoping) if I may have forgotten about this, I'm a couple of chapters into Breaking Dawn. I seem to recall the Mrs. telling me that in Bella Swan, her main character, Stephanie Meyer wanted to capture, in large part, the voice of what she herself was like when she was nineteen (Bella's age).

I will just let that linger in the air for now. But I'll be coming back to it.

Read More...

Thursday, January 07, 2010

The obligatory "the year in music" post, a few days late

The cover art for Magnolia Electric Co.'s 2005 album, What Comes After the Blues. Image (and links to full-length tracks via the "Media" link) found here.

As I begin this post, I am listening to Tinariwen's 2009 album, Imidiwan ("Companions"), about which more later. I have posted about this Touareg band from the deserts of northern Mali before: real, genuine revolutionaries (they formed in the refugee camps of people displaced after the wars for independence against the Malian government in the '80s), still fighting on behalf of their people and culture--through music, now--that has melded electric guitars, traditional melodies influenced by John Lee Hooker-style blues, and lyrics so steeped in Touareg culture and politics that they read simultaneously like that people's open secrets and poetry to the rest of us. AND: White people can dance to it. No wonder this band, on its Summer 2009 tour of the U.S., won such acclaim from those who saw them perform.

How to convey my sense that Tinariwen are making music as vital as anyone I'm aware of and that anyone with any appreciation for hypnotic groove will find immediate entree into (and wait till you read the lyrics), and yet at the same time avoid romanticizing them into Noble Savages-with-Gibsons out of Western culture's constant craving for something authentic which we suspect our own culture has long ago lost? Even the accompanying booklet, with its interposed "Magic Desert Moments," I'm afraid to say, perhaps tilts this album's apparatus too far into romanticization. But what can the good people of World Village/Harmonia Mundi do? Tinariwen really do still live in/with the desert, with all that that entails: to know that they know, when they hear jackals at night, that "[t]hey're talking about us" is as much what Tinariwen signify as their music. Perhaps more--for without knowing something about that world that they remain immersed in, listening to their music becomes a lowest-common-denominator kind of experience: White folks willing to shell out $19 retail can dance to this. Cool!

Before this morning, I hadn't planned to yammer at such length about the dilemma Tinariwen pose for someone like me. But that was before I read David Hajdu's thought-provoking article at The New Republic, ""Pretending." It's ostensibly a review of the video games Guitar Hero and The Beatles: Rock Band but, in the tradition of Roland Barthes' essays in his book Mythologies ("Popular Culture" studies before such a thing existed) becomes something deeper:

It is tempting to interpret the phenomenal success of music-oriented games--especially the wildly hyped Beatles edition of Rock Band, introduced in September of this year--as evidence of music’s return to the center of young life, or as validation of the aesthetic values of classic rock. The reality is more complicated and less flattering to boomerdom. For one thing, these games have fairly little to do with music. After all, they are games--like poker, the Olympics, or pro football; and like those and other games, they are, to varying degrees, largely about the pursuit of status and glory, wealth and sex. Guitar Hero and Rock Band involve musicianship in the same sense that chess involves military service. Rocking, like rooking, is the thematic action; but the content is the form, the rules.

For another thing--and this is the main failing of music games, and it is a significant one--they have the insidious effect of glorifying classic rock, a music with an already bloated reputation that is founded on its very bloatedness. In the games’ absorption with technical prowess, speed, flash, grandiose show, and fakery, they not only affirm the enduring allure of classic rock to kids and young adults, especially males; they also advance its tyranny. People like me who have kids of video-game-playing age no doubt get many things wrong about these games, and chief among the errors of our age group, I think, is inflated generational pride in the 1970s-style arena rock that Guitar Hero and Rock Band promote to our descendants--kids who might otherwise, and perhaps more appropriately, use their after-school hours to nurture interests in music of their own. The games reassure us that our aftercomers are our heirs. They are male-oriented tools of cultural primogeniture, applications of twenty-first-century technology with a very ancient mission.

Later on, Hajdu will read Giles Martin's involvement with The Beatles: Rock Band as an Oedipal narrative (Giles' father is producer George Martin, the real "5th Beatle" if there ever was one): The Beatles of course started out as a band, but their legacy rests not on live performance but on what they did in the studio under the elder Martin's guidance; for the son to claim the Lads were "just the four guys in a room making noise, and that noise comes from them and from nothing else" is, to Hadju, "a strange betrayal not only of the Beatles, but of the person most responsible for facilitating their transmutation of pop into a studio art: his father. So much for pop primogeniture."

So, this is the mass-cultural world in which we find ourselves: one that craves and seeks "authenticity" in cultural expression because our own, we suspect, is so co-opted by commercial considerations as to be reduced to the state of the surface's being its essence; and yet, when we have within our own culture examples that seem authentic, there's the strong impulse to deny them something that informs that authenticity--not just, for example, the reductive reading of the Beatles as "just the four guys in a room making noise" but also things like the "No Fear Shakespeare" books. I think the thing to do with a band like Tinariwen is to keep on telling my reader(s) that they are a band worth knowing and, as faithfully to them as I can, convey why that is, and at the same time fervently hope that their music doesn't end up in Guitar Hero 2.0.

And now, on with the list. As with last year's round-up, what follows is more a new-to-me list of the best music I ran across, though some 2009 releases appear here. Because of my yammering on (and on) above, the comments below will be brief but, I hope, reflective and not reductive of what you'll hear.

Balmorhea, All Is Wild, All Is Silent (2009). Named for a small town in West Texas known for its enormous spring-fed swimming pool (now a state park), Austin-based Balmorhea is yet another post-rock band in that city. This group's sound has a chamber music feel to it, with its acoustic guitars, piano, violin and cello serving as foundations and some electric instruments as ornamentation. This album's music (and its title) are inspired by the letters of one of the very earliest American settlers in Texas--he was there even before the arrival of the famous-for-Texas Moses and Stephen F. Austin-led settlers to the land between the Brazos and Colorado rivers. It works even if you don't know all that, but (I think--and I may be writing about this album later) it becomes a richer listening experience if you do. Good driving-across-the-prairie music, at any rate. Here is a link to a live performance of "Coahuila," a song from the album.

More selections below the fold.

Boards of Canada, Twoism (1995; 2002). Electronica, I suppose you'd call it, but with a "live" rhythmic feel to it that so much of that music lacks. As I listened to this for the first time, I kept being reminded of the sort of thing you hear on the radio program Hearts of Space, but more overtly shaped by rhythm than much of that music is. If someone were to ask me what "chill" is, I'd point him/her in this direction.

Magnolia Electric Co., What Comes After the Blues (2005). This band and its previous incarnation, Songs: Ohia, were one of last year's big revelations for me. Jason Molina, the singer and principle songwriter, is a Neil Young soundalike whose music captures much of Young's brooding mysteriousness from those early-'70s albums; Molina's music mixes that with an alt-country vibe (think Uncle Tupelo, Son Volt, the Jayhawks). The website has lots of samples from this and the other albums, plus scores of full-length live performances. Good stuff.

Edgar Meyer & Chris Thile (2008). Meyer (bass) and Thile (mandolin) work the space between bluegrass, jazz, and classical music. It's a tribute to just how intertwined the instruments are when I say that at times, it's difficult to know which of them is the one I "should" be listening to. Virtuosic, indeed, but often moving and, more than occasionally, witty and even humorous.

Luciana Souza, Duos II (2005). Souza is yet another in Brazil's apparently-endless line of smoky-voiced altos. I posted about Souza's album Brazilian Duos last year; this album also offers up older and contemporary sambas and bossa novas, but the playing and singing on this album has a jazzier feel. This is instantly likable and yet holds up to repeated listening as you become more aware of the wonderful musicianship on display here.

Tinariwen, Imidiwan (2009). The cover art for this album pretty much conveys what is important about this group: in particular, the desire to make music out of whatever is at hand. But by way of concluding this post I'll quote the (translated) lyrics of "Tamodjerazt Assis" ("Regret Is Like a Worm") and hope that some of the music you heard last year speaks this earnestly, this nakedly:
Regret is like a worm, anxiety is like war
For my youth which I wasted
I touched incandescence, I burned everything whole
I set fire to myself, I became like cinders
I wasted so much time with futile things
Getting mixed up with lies, with schemes, and with treachery
When I was a child, I was determined
When I was a child, I was already disconnected
I lived beyond the news of the world, I wasted everything

Read More...