Showing posts with label Thoreau. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thoreau. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

"A track-repairer somewhere in the orbit of the earth":Thoreau and late capitalism

A stretch of the railroad between Fitchburg and Concord. Image found here.

One would think that there'd be no need to write something like a post with the title that this one has: that a fairly attentive reading of Walden or, less directly, "Life Without Principle" would reveal to the reader pretty clearly what the Concord Curmudgeon would have to say about such things.

Just as a refresher, though, here's a bit from Walden's first chapter, "Economy," that should make my point: "I cannot believe that our factory system is the best mode by which men may get clothing. . . . [their] principle object is, not that mankind may be well and honestly clad, but, unquestionably, that the corporations may be enriched. In the long run, men hit only what they aim at. Therefore, though they should fail immediately, they had better aim at something high." For Thoreau, the essence of capitalism--by which I mean, what drives capitalism--is not to make stuff that people need but to cause people to want stuff enough to pay money for it. That these two dynamics might actually overlap, as in the public's need to be clothed and factories' producing of clothes, is incidental.

But then a few weeks ago, I read Crispen Sartwell's piece, "My Walden, My Walmart"; and, you know, what better do I have to do this summer than respond to dumb arguments about my man Thoreau?

Here's the essence of Sartwell's piece (forgive the length--he rambles a bit, which is actually appropriate to his argument):

We are at a cultural moment when living in close proximity and having many close friends and a ceaseless embracing community are thought to be unalloyed goods. “Bowling alone” is our shorthand for personal despair and social disintegration.

However, as I dare say you — like Jean-Paul Sartre — have noticed, people can be annoying. We need distance from, as much as we need association with, one another. Thoreau tried for both: he would walk from Walden Pond to Concord, hang out with his dear friends the Emersons and the Alcotts, and then retreat to his hovel to be fairly happily alone.

If on such occasions Thoreau was thinking in his reflective way that human beings are animals and that what we do is natural, then he did not consider his stroll into Concord a departure from nature but an exploration of a bit of it. And this is the way I feel about Walmart, which — big-box island in a blacktop sea — is a perfectly natural object, as much an environment as my woods.
[snip]
Unlike Thoreau, I have cable. Yet Thoreau and I commune, more or less the same way that Greg [an acquaintance Sartwell mentions earlier] and I do, across space and time. And that’s how I can assure you that, if Thoreau were around today, he’d be pushing a cart through a Walmart three miles from Walden Pond with a bag of socks, a gallon of milk and a Blu-ray player, nodding pleasantly at people he sort of recognizes.


Now, keep in mind: Given my job as a professor of English who teaches composition classes, I have seen my fair share of bad arguments. I'm not thin-skinned as far as that is concerned. However, that Sartwell makes such claims and also earns his living as a professor of philosophy is, um, disconcerting. My most charitable reading of this piece is that Sartwell is working from a fading memory of Thoreau. Otherwise, it's very very hard to see how he would have come to these conclusions after a recent and/or attentive reading of Walden. Or, maybe he sees Walmart's ads' current tag-line, "Save money. Live better," as Thoreauvian in quality. To that I'd say, Well, yes; but I think it fair to say that each arrives at very different means by which to accomplish those ends.

No, there were no Walmarts in Concord. But there were railroads. And I think one can argue that in Thoreau's meditation on the Fitchburg railroad--its physical attributes, the work required to build and maintain it, and the physical and socioeconomic work it performs (and performs on us, as well)--we can catch a glimpse of what Thoreau might have to say about Walmart.

The railroad is about a quarter-mile from Thoreau's cabin and he writes that he often uses its roadbed as his route into Concord, so it is a recurring presence in Walden; however, Thoreau discusses it at length in Chapter 4, "Sounds." These several pages are an ambivalently-mixed bag. On the one hand, Thoreau writes, "I am refreshed and expanded when when the freight train rattles past me[. . . ] I feel more like a citizen of the world at the sight of the palm-leaf which will cover so many flaxen New England heads the next summer, the Manilla hemp and cocoa-nut husks, the old junk, gunny bags, scrap iron, and rusty nails. This car-load of torn sails is more legible and interesting now than if they should be wrought into paper and printed books. Who can write so graphically the history of the storms they have weathered as these rents have done? They are proof-sheets that need no correction." And so on, in this vein, for a while. Yet even in this ostensibly positive passage, we catch a glimpse of something that Thoreau will say much more directly, both in this chapter and elsewhere: that the railroad facilitates and participates in capitalism's transforming of raw or discarded materials into new goods that as a result hide their materials' origins--and, not coincidentally, their human costs.

In "Economy," Walden's first chapter, Thoreau talks about goods in terms not of their price but of their cost: "the cost of a thing is the amount of what I will call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run." For Thoreau, this clearly extends to the labor performed to achieve something that is more likely to benefit people other than those who have built it--and, moreover, this idea of cost extends even to the supposed beneficiaries of these goods or services. Thoreau's chief example of this, throughout Walden, is the railroad. Witness, as just one example (from "Where I Lived, What I lived For," his extended punning on the old name for railroad ties:
We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us. Did you ever think what those sleepers are that underlie the railroad? Each one is a man, an Irishman or a Yankee man. The rails are laid on them, and they are covered with sand, and the cars run smoothly over them. They are sound sleepers, I assure you. . . . I am glad to know that it takes a gang of men for every five miles to keep the sleepers down and level in their beds as it is, for this is a sign that they may sometime get up again.


I don't think it takes a great deal of imagination to apply this sort of critique to Walmart: its efforts to reduce prices for its customers serves to hide the costs of those efforts on its own workers and those of the companies who have made those goods, just as the railroad's enormous capacity for hauling goods overwhelms with its power and at the same time makes harder to see that that same capacity makes obsolete the drovers and wagoneers formerly needed to deliver those same goods. Why Sartwell thinks that Thoreau would contentedly push his cart around Walmart, instead of, at the very least, performing a silent cost-benefit analysis of the sort with which Walden is shot through, makes me wonder if Walmart has indeed succeeded in hypnotizing him with the allure of cheap tube socks.

Read More...

Sunday, June 05, 2011

"My own louts": An excerpt from John Graves' Goodbye to a River

Having grown up in Texas, and grown up hearing his name, it's hard for me to gauge how well known John Graves (b. 1920) is outside Texas. The fact that he's been nominated twice for the National Book Award, though, would suggest that he has a reputation in some circles. Anyway, while I was in Austin, the Barnes & Noble I visited happened to have a copy of the book which established Graves' reputation, Goodbye to a River; I don't think I'd ever even seen a copy of it before, so I grabbed it. It's been my bedtime reading for a few days now.

The book's plot is a simple one. In the 1950s, the government proposed a series of dams along 200 or so miles of the Brazos River south and west of Forth Worth, a stretch of river that Graves grew up along and knew well as a boy and a young man. Graves wants to see that stretch one last time, before the impounded water floods the canyons and sand bars and still-untouched stands of oak and elm, so in November of 1957 he loads up a canoe with provisions (more than he really needs--he occasionally uses Thoreau to reproach himself) and a "not very practical" six-month-old daschund and heads downstream. As he relates the incidents of travel, the changing weather and the folks he meets along the way, he also tells the stories he knows about the flora and fauna (both presently there and long gone), the bends and crossings and landmarks.

That's the plot. Here's the book's ethos in a nutshell (the ellipsis is Graves' own):

Nothing that happened in this segment, [during the time of the Comanche raids] or later, made any notable dent in human history. From one very possible point of view, the stories tell of a partly unnecessary, drawn-out squabble between savages and half-illiterate louts constituting the fringes of a culture which, two and a half centuries before, had spawned Shakespeare, and which even then was reading Dickins and Trollope and Thoreau and considering the thoughts of Charles Darwin. They tell too--the stories--of the subsequent squabbles among the louts themselves: of cattle thievery, corn whisky, Reconstruction, blood feuds, lynchings, splinter sectarianism, and further illiteracy.

Can they then have any bearing on mankind's adventures?

Maybe a little. They don't all tell of louts. There was something of a showing-through; meanings floated near the surface which have relevance to the murkier thing Americans have become. It didn't happen just on the Brazos, certainly, but all along the line of that moving brush fire. There's nothing new in the idea that the frontier had continuing impact on our character, or that one slice of that frontier, examined, may to some degree explain the whole . . .

But in truth such gravities were not what salted the tales I could read, looking off over the low country from the point atop the bluffs. Mankind is one thing; a man's self is another. What that self is tangles itself knottily with what his people were, and what they came out of. Mine came out of Texas, as did I. If those were louts, they were my own louts. (143-144)


Only three of the dams were built--due in large part, many say, to this book.

Read More...

Saturday, November 22, 2008

"Look on my blog, ye mighty, and despair!": Slow-blogging and the (slow) death of irony

Image found here.

There have been times of late when I've wondered what my, um, tens of thousands of readers must be thinking when they visit these pages and click the Refresh button every, oh, 30 seconds or so, in hopes of seeing new content, only to have their souls crushed. Do they bitterly bewail their disappointment in not having been sustained by some new arranging, deepening, enchanting of the blogosphere? Well, truth be told, probably not. These past few weeks, when I've visited good old Blog Meridian, I have thought one thing and noticed another. The thing thought: Aside from posting that I have nothing to post, I have nothing to post. The thing noticed: Over the past month or so, close observation of the Feedburner chiclet has revealed to me that the number of subscribers to this blog's feed actually increases after I've not posted for a couple of days, and decreases the day after I post something. Case in point: yesterday--before posting--13 subscribers; today--after having posted yesterday--12.

I get it. I can take a hint.

Yet: here I go, risking driving yet a few more subscribers away.

How to rationalize all this in a way that will break my relative silence so as to explain it. Well, via my bloggy friend Belle Lettre of Law and Letters, here come two articles which she unironically(?--well, really: who knows?) posted one after the other, that help to show me the way. To begin, here we have a New York Times piece on something called Slow Blogging:

A Slow Blog Manifesto, written in 2006 by Todd Sieling, a technology consultant from Vancouver, British Columbia, laid out the movement’s tenets. “Slow Blogging is a rejection of immediacy,” he wrote. “It is an affirmation that not all things worth reading are written quickly.” (Nor, because of a lack of traffic, is Mr. Sieling writing this blog at all these days.) [Barbara] Ganley, who recently left her job as a writing instructor at Middlebury College, compares slow blogging to meditation. It’s “being quiet for a moment before you write,” she said, “and not having what you write be the first thing that comes out of your head.”
Once again, Thoreau is way ahead of this particular curve. From chapter 2 of Walden:
Shams and delusions are esteemed for soundest truths, while reality is fabulous. If men would steadily observe realities only, and not allow themselves to be deluded, life, to compare it with such things as we know, would be like a fairy tale and the Arabian Nights' Entertainments. If we respected only what is inevitable and has a right to be, music and poetry would resound along the streets. When we are unhurried and wise, we perceive that only great and worthy things have any permanent and absolute existence, that petty fears and petty pleasures are but the shadow of the reality. This is always exhilarating and sublime.
Preach it, Hank! This is precisely why I've never understood the appeal of Twitter: even I'm not all that interested in the quotidiana of my life; how presumptuous to assume anyone else would be.

Keeping a blog going for almost four years is presumption enough, I figure.

One's own ironic moments are for other people to point out. It will most likely not be a Republican who points out to his Senate colleagues that it is, um, ironic to continue to be enamored with the filibuster when they recently expressed considerably less affection for it when, before 2006, they were the majority party. If the hip thing these days is to be self-aware, always cognizant of how one's professed beliefs (whether natural or super-) don't quite match up with the realities of one's lived life, the hip will inevitably notice a dearth (if not the complete absence) of irony among their kind. But even self-awareness has its blind spots--witness the CEOs of the Big Three automakers each flying in one of his several corporate jets to Washington to plead that his company is on its last financial legs; and there are plenty of un-hip folks out there, too. So, just because you despair for the health of irony in your own particular discourse community doesn't mean that it's not alive and well and just waiting for you to find examples of to snark about. this New York Times article in which its writer and his interviewees listen for the death-rattle of Irony:
[A]re ironic sensibilities like [Joan] Didion’s — the detachment of mind, the appreciation of the folly of taking things at face value — really disappearing?

Not according to the conservative humorist P. J. O’Rourke, who reported from his New Hampshire office on Wednesday that he was finishing a piece for The Weekly Standard with the working title, “Is It Too Soon to Start Talking About the Failed Obama Presidency Just Because He Isn’t President Yet?”

Not according to the thin black novelist Colson Whitehead, who wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times under the headline, “Finally, a Thin President.”

“Something bad happens, like 9/11, it’s the death of irony,” Mr. Whitehead said in an e-mail message on Thursday. “Something good happens, like Obama’s win, it’s the death of irony. When will someone proclaim the death of iceberg lettuce? I’m sick of it making my salads boring.”
This, Mr. Whitehead, is precisely why we elected Mr. Obama: Increased subsidies for farmers willing to grow arugula instead of iceberg lettuce. Change we can believe in, indeed.

But, curiously,
Ms. Didion might be on to something. A Nexis search found that the incidence of the words “irony,” “ironic” and “ironically” in major American newspapers during the two-week period beginning Nov. 6 slipped 19 percent from the same period last year.

In New York, Ms. Didion’s home city, irony has been steadily disappearing from daily newspapers for a decade, the analysis found. In those same two-week November periods from 2000 to 2008, appearances of “irony” and its cognates tumbled 56 percent. Some of the drop seems to be because of the shrinking of newspapers, but a similar Nexis search with a control word, “went,” showed a drop of only 32 percent, leaving an irony gap of 24 percentage points.

The analysis may have its flaws. For one thing, the search algorithm also, ironically, picked up phrases like “end of irony.” More significantly, no self-respecting ironist actually uses the word “ironic,” except, perhaps, ironically.
So. There's no irony in the fact that when I post something new here the number of subscribers to this blog drops. None. There is none because I perceive this trend. There's humor in it, perhaps, for the perverse among you, and even, among my myriad enemies in the blogosphere, more than a little schadenfreude. "Just you keep on posting," I fancy them muttering in blogospheric hugger-mugger. But I am no Ozymandias, no siree. I may be losing readers every time I post something new, but I'm aware that I am.

The solution is obvious, then: keep on posting less and less frequently, thus enhancing the importance of the posts when I do. "John B. deigns to post!" you will cry aloud when you see a new post from here appear in your RSS readers after a span of days (or longer) without seeing one. At some point, the fact of my posting, say, that I'll be getting a haircut (as, it happens, I'll be doing today) will acquire an importance roughly akin to that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra for my merely having decided to inform the blogosphere of this.

You lucky people. What distilled drips and drams of wisdom are in your future! The fewer the drips, the more distilled--and, thus, precious--they are. How could it be otherwise?

So, like, be ready and stuff. Who knows when the next post will appear? Keep those lamps filled.

Read More...

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

A stretch of river LIII: Frost on the grass, stars in the sky

Thoreau's cabin at Walden Pond.

[I]f a man would be alone, let him look at the stars. The rays that come from those heavenly worlds, will separate between him and what he touches. One might think the atmosphere was made transparent with this design, to give man, in the heavenly bodies, the perpetual presence of the sublime. Seen in the streets of the cities, how great they are! If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore; and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God which had been shown! But every night come out these envoys of beauty, and light the universe with their admonishing smile.--Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Nature"
I confess to being a bad Transcendentalist this morning as Scruffy and I walked through the park. For a little while, at least.

Yesterday was chilly, yes, but this morning . . . where had our pleasantly-cool fall mornings gone? Just before sunrise is the coldest part of the morning, as most people know; and this morning--well below freezing, a heavy frost on the ground and vapor rising off the river--found me underdressed and that dawning awareness coming upon me slowly and, when it did arrive, found me on the other side of the river--pointless by that time to return for something heavier. So, yeah: Thoreau in Walden one day disparages the rain that causes him to postpone his fishing trip but later thinks that the rain, being good for the grass, was also good for him; I'm afraid I was not nearly so gracious regarding the frost on the grass's possibly being good for my rapidly-numbing fingers. Add to this Scruffy's--as it seemed to me--deliberately seeking out and smelling Every. Little. Odoriferous. Spot. no matter how far off our route it might lay, and . . . sorry, Henry and Ralph. I just wanted to get home and get warm.

At one point, though, as I cursed my luck this morning for having far-too-casually decided four years ago that owning a dog would be okay and not taking into account that he'd require walking at least twice a day no matter the weather, not to mention our own obligations of whatever sort--thus feeling I was now laboring under a mistake (thanks, Henry)--I happened to glance up at the sky and see the constellation Orion. One blessing of living in Wichita is that, even in the middle of the city, light-pollution is not so bad and the air is clear enough that many stars are not only easily visible, there have been times in the past when they twinkle so brilliantly that they seem almost audible. This morning was not quite one of those mornings; but, despite my standing under a lamppost at this moment, Orion was easily visible. Just for a moment, I stopped cursing my luck; my mind flashed back to our guide to Teotihuacan two weeks ago telling us that the relative placement of its two main pyramids may have served as a gigantic solar calendar.

I'm no fool: it's safe to assume that the vast, vast majority of the laborers who built Teotihuacan had, shall we say, little choice in the matter. At one level, it's easy to agree with Thoreau when he says in Walden, "As for the Pyramids, there is nothing to wonder at in them so much as the fact that so many men could be found degraded enough to spend their lives constructing a tomb for some ambitious booby, whom it would have been wiser and manlier to have drowned in the Nile, and then given his body to the dogs. I might possibly invent some excuse for them and him, but I have no time for it." But at another level--that of the societal--the mapping of a city (a human-created environment, after all) in accordance with a map of the cosmos rather than one reflecting some strange confluence of local topography and the whims of succeeding generations of residents--a denial of the contingent in favor of the Always There: there's an undeniable grandeur and vision to that that I think Thoreau might also agree with:
Men esteem truth remote, in the outskirts of the system, behind the farthest star, before Adam and after the last man. In eternity there is indeed something true and sublime. But all these times and places and occasions are now and here. God himself culminates in the present moment, and will never be more divine in the lapse of all the ages. And we are enabled to apprehend at all what is sublime and noble only by the perpetual instilling and drenching of the reality that surrounds us. The universe constantly and obediently answers to our conceptions; whether we travel fast or slow, the track is laid for us. Let us spend our lives in conceiving then.
A marvelous word, conceiving, in this context, both its meanings of "understanding" and "to cause to begin life" working equally well here.

Scruffy's always needing walking--not a heck of a lot of transcendence in that. Not this particular morning, at least. But the stars are always there, the sky spinning about but always returning to the same place eventually: that is their wonder. One can not only map a city according to that, one can take that idea and begin to map a life, or re-chart one already mapped.

Read More...

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Thoreau's Finest Work-song

"Simplify, simplify, simplify!"

(Thanks to Amy for inspiration.)

(Thoreau's cabin at Walden Pond. Image found here)

Read More...

Friday, October 26, 2007

Thoreau as critical thinker

There are times, I think, when one could do away with a couple hundred pages of the standard texts on rhetoric foisted on college freshmen and, instead, have them read and think carefully about certain passages from Walden, like this one, from "Economy":

One farmer says to me, "You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make bones with;" and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying his system with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plough along in spite of every obstacle. Some things are really necessaries of life in some circles, the most helpless and diseased, which in others are luxuries merely, and in others still are entirely unknown.

Read More...

Saturday, May 26, 2007

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

Why, thank you, Mr. Emerson, for providing me with a handy excuse for not acknowledging your birthday yesterday. How, well, conformist to recognize a person's birthday on that day. "Whoso among you would be a man must be a non-conformist," I hear you say, and I say Aye. Here, I say in my manliest fashion, is my virtual tribute to you.

Of course, this same man also famously said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." Well. I am sorry to report that there are times, as I think back on many things that I have come to believe are true, when it really does seem to me that "what I know" is Emerson--or maybe, better put, Emerson in tension with the ideas of his student and gentle gadfly, Thoreau. And Thoreau is, to my mind, not fully knowable without some knowledge of Emerson. Good old Blog Meridian is filled with quotes from, allusions to, and unconscious restatings of these men's words, ideas and attitudes about the world; remove all that, and it would become effectively disoriented. It would lose what might in fact be its prime meridian (or maybe its equator--but you get the idea: some big, important, navigation-type thingy).

So: I'm just going to shut up and let the opening paragraphs of Emerson's 1836 essay "Nature" speak for a bit (my source for the text is this site, which has all the Emerson texts most people will ever need):

Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also. There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship.

Undoubtedly we have no questions to ask which are unanswerable. We must trust the perfection of the creation so far, as to believe that whatever curiosity the order of things has awakened in our minds, the order of things can satisfy. Every man's condition is a solution in hieroglyphic to those inquiries he would put. He acts it as life, before he apprehends it as truth. In like manner, nature is already, in its forms and tendencies, describing its own design. Let us interrogate the great apparition, that shines so peacefully around us. Let us inquire, to what end is nature?

Some brief--I promise--yammering below the fold.

When I've taught Emerson in the past, I tell my students that this essay's opening paragraph, coming as it does 60 years after our nation's declaration of political independence, is our declaration of philosophical independence ("Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe?"). That second paragraph, meanwhile, could not be a better argument in favor of the compatibility of science and religion (some neo-medievalists among us, you know, would argue otherwise) and in so doing, I just noticed this morning, all but states out loud Derrida's famous phrase "always already"in the antepenultimate sentence of this excerpt--except, instead of "philosophy," Emerson says, we'll find Nature: the source of philosophy.

There is nothing outside the (Emersonian) text. No wonder I keep returning to him: there's no escaping him.

Happy birthday, sir.

UPDATE (May 27): Belatedly (as is usual with me), it was after reading Aunty's comment that it occurred to me that some of you might prefer to read your Emerson in paper form. Though this doesn't have the essay I quoted from above, it does have all the essays of the First and Second Series (including important essays such as "Self-Reliance" and "Experience"), along with a brief but very helpful introduction.

Read More...

Sunday, April 04, 2004

Daylight Savings Time; Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; King Crimson

A rather crowded agenda for this entry . . . just making up for lost time.
Fearful Syzygy's recent entry on the Dane/Danish fellow/Dansker (which is it nowadays?) who attributes some of Denmark's fiscal rotteness to that nation's version of Daylight Savings Time inspires the first part of this blog.  As of 2 a.m. this morning, we have sprung forward here, "here" signifying most of the U.S.  Arizona opts out of Daylight Savings Time entirely; even stranger, though, is the case of Indiana, which not only is bifurcated by the Eastern and Central time zone lines but also has individual COUNTIES on BOTH sides of that line which have chosen not to spring forward or fall back.  It becomes more than a little complicated to rise with the chickens there in the Hoosier State.And that last line leads me to argue against Daylight Savings Time as well, though for a reason different than the one offered by the fellow in Denmark.  I don't know why DST was initiated there, but here it was proposed by Benjamin Franklin as a way maximizing daylight hours during the winter, when the days grow shorter, for the benefit of farmers.  With the rise of mechanization on farms (one of the simplest signs of that being tractors with headlights on them), that reason no longer applies.  No doubt someone in this country makes arguments in support of DST, but I truly can't imagine what they would be.  At least the chief argument in favor of raising speed limits on major highways to 70 mph was that some people want to drive faster than 65.  So then, at least from my myopic perspective, we keep DST around for the same reason that most school districts keep the 9-month school year: a tradition dating back to our agrarian roots.  Nothing wrong with that, I suppose.  Much can be said in support of the idea that our agrarian society, without sentimentalizing it, was in most respects a healthier society: poor diets, yes, but the labor performed on farms resulted in less obesity in the population; only the upper classes could complain of boredom--now, of course, even the poor are so media-saturated that boredom permeates all societal levels of our culture; and I do think that the sort of communal labor that gets performed in such cultures leads to the sustaining of societies whose people do give at least a small darn about the welfare of their neighbors.  But DST, even in our mostly-agrarian past, didn't nurture the strengths mentioned above.  It didn't save time, the way most machines are supposed to do; it saved daylight so that there was "more" of it for working.  It paradoxically didn't allow farmers to keep time with the rhythms of the sun and seasons but actually tied them more tightly to the workings of gears inside clocks: "Well, the clock says 6, no  matter what the sun says."Could one make an argument that DST, far from aiding farmers in their work, is actually, if not a cause, then at least symptomatic of my nation's move away from agrarianism and toward an urban society?  That and the railroads, whose invention created the need for standardized time zones in the first place?I have no proof for any of the above.  I think Thoreau would dig this, though (I've been teaching a brief excerpt from Walden in my comp classes recently).  We can't revert from urbanism, and I'm not arguing that we should.  But the fact remains, as Thoreau argues and demonstrates so eloquently, that our self-removal from participation in daily and the seasonal rhythms via the Machine has the long-term effect of emptying our lives of a simpler and more genuine meaning for our living.
Speaking of thought-provoking ideas: two weeks ago, I went to see the most recent Charlie Kaufman-written film, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (starring Jim Carrey, Kate Wimslet, Kristen Durst, and Elijah Wood in a decidedly anti-Frodo role).  In an earlier entry, the Blog mentioned some favorite directors, but inexplicably left off the list was Spike Jonze's work with Kaufman: Being John Malkovic and Adaptation are really imaginative films in the fullest sense of that adjective, I think, not just for their quirkiness but also in that (and this is especially true of the first one) they at their hearts tell familiar tales but make them appear fresh: What's it like to see the world through the eyes of another person?  What if we could in some way remove ourselves from our decidedly subjective point of view and THEN, in effect, see the world as we see it, but this time from that outsider's perspective?  And, in Adaptation, just where IS that boundary between the writer and his work. It took seeing Eternal Sunshine . . . to see these matters more clearly, to see these films' quirkiness as means to their respective ends.  This is a romance, in both the movie genre AND the Hawthornian senses of that word (In his preface to The Blithedale Romance, Hawthorne says that in romances, the "work is not exactly put side by side with nature," thus permitting "a license with regard to every-day Probability, in view of the improved effects which [the author] is bound to produce thereby.")  Via decidedly sci-fi means--kinda like The Matrix, but this time we're inside individual minds rather than (maybe, maybe not) computers--this film examines the relationship between love and memory: what is it exactly that love is?  Is love the result of memory, or is memory the result of love?  How is love (or memory, for that matter?) preserved?  Is that solely an act of the individual who remembers his/her lover, or does it come from somewhere else, ie., outside the individual?  Once we gain our narrative sea-legs in the plot, we root for the lovers, as we're supposed to do in all movie romances; but when approached from the Hawthornian angle, the film becomes less about the particulars of the lovers' relationship and more about a metaphysics of love, a dynamic of love, that we couldn't examine, one suspects, without the literal invasion of a decidedly anti-R/romantic Machine into the plot.  I'm afraid to say much more here for two reasons: 1) The film surprises in many ways, not the least of which is the richness produced by its explorations of that metaphysics of love, and I don't want to spoil that for the potential viewer; 2) If I keep talking about this intellectually and visually magical film, I'll never get to King Crimson in Arkansas today.  Perhaps I can continue that discussion, though, with those who see fit to comment on this entry.
The drive from Wichita to where my children live is 14 hours, so I take along a selection of CDs to listen to.  I try for a variety of things; my selections for the spring break trip were: the Branford Marsalis Quartet, Romare Bearden Revealed; Led Zeppelin, Presence; King Crimson, THRAK; The Rough Guide to Samba; Lizz Wright, Salt; and Yes, The Yes Album.  Oddly, I want to talk about THRAK because it disappointed me.  I like very much early Crimson--the debut album and Red especially stand out, I think--and one of my favorite albums, period, is Discipline.  All these albums have an elegance to them: an emphasis on melody and precision.  Discipline in particular works because of its impossibly tight rhythm section of Tony Levin (bass) and Bill Bruford ("batterie").  More recent Crimson, though, is different.  From this period I have THRAK and The ConstruKction of Light, and each of these albums explores the possibilities of imposing noise over simpler song constructions (and I'm certain there's a better way to say this).  As a comparison: maybe an artier Sonic Youth or Dinosaur Jr.?  I don't mind noise, but what I found myself noticing on THRAK was a lack of melodic variety and, despite a couple of "quiet" songs, an emphasis on heaviness.  It became tedious, wearying to listen to: not the sort of thing one wants one's music to be when driving through the flatlands of the Mississippi alluvial plain.  As for lyrics, one of the refreshing things about Discipline is the wit of Adrian Belew's lyrics--after all this time, they still make my brain smile.  But in THRAK, the words sound forced or tired.  I suppose, then, that it disappoints because it's not the Crimson that I prefer; one could say that it's unfair not to permit a band that's been around for so long the license to experiment with its sound . . . would that Yes would do a bit more of that in its newer work even as it settles into the stage persona of prog-rock oldies band.  But it IS fair for fans not to especially approve of the results of those experiments.I like better The ConstruKction of Light; as its title suggests, to these ears, at least, there's a return to an intricate melodicism underlying the heaviness--you can see why they toured with Tool for about a month a couple of years ago.
Susan and I continue our discussion of Flemish/Dutch painting; more talk of that will be forthcoming.

Those wishing to read the comments from the original LiveJournal post can go here.

Read More...